ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cost of Living

Ann McKechin: What steps she is taking to address the rising cost of living in Northern Ireland.

John Robertson: What steps she is taking to address the rising cost of living in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: The actions the Government are taking to help with the cost of living include freezing fuel duty, cutting income tax bills, delivering the biggest ever single cash increase in the state pension and helping to keep interest rates low by dealing with the deficit.

Ann McKechin: The Secretary of State may be aware that last year the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action confirmed that Belfast, with an expected loss of £840 per adult of working age, will be hit harder than any other major city in Britain. Will she advise the House on what specific steps she is taking to address the cost of living, given the depth and scale of the problem in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, the Government take this issue very seriously. That is why fuel duty today is 20 pence per litre lower than it would have been if we had stuck with the previous Government’s plans; that is why we have cut income tax for about 618,000 people in Northern Ireland and taken 75,000 out of income tax altogether; and that is why people on the minimum wage will see their income tax bills halved by April.

John Robertson: I wonder whether the Secretary of State can tell us what her assessment is of the Advice NI social policy report, which confirms that over 11 food banks have opened in Northern Ireland since 2012. Is she happy with that? If not, what does she plan to do about it?

Theresa Villiers: Of course it is a matter of regret that anyone feels the need to go to a food bank, but the Government are doing everything they can to support people on low incomes with the cost of living. I hope the Opposition will welcome the fact that inflation fell
	to 2% yesterday. We will continue to give people support, in particular with our triple lock on pensions that delivered the biggest ever single cash increase in the state pension, and we will continue to deal with the deficit. The real threat to the cost of living would be a Labour Government, who would put up taxes and see interest rates increased.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the real way to deal with cost of living issues is to pursue economic growth with a long-term strategy to rebalance the economy, and that that applies to Northern Ireland, particularly in engineering and manufacturing?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in living standards is to run the economy efficiently and effectively, and to have a credible plan to deal with the deficit. That is the way we can keep interest rates low and deal with inflation, and that is the way we can make this country a wealthier place.

Philip Hollobone: Some disreputable people try to reduce the cost living by smuggling fuel across the border with the Republic of Ireland. What steps are being taken to combat this menace?

Theresa Villiers: There is very effective cross-border working. There is also very effective working between the Northern Ireland Executive and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We take this matter very seriously. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary has been looking with care at the different proposals for new marker technology. I expect progress on that to be announced very soon.

Jim Shannon: One in three people, in response to Shelter Northern Ireland questionnaires, stated that this year they will struggle to pay their rent or mortgage payments and that child care costs take up a large part of their budget. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Department for Work and Pensions to raise the child care element for full-time working families?

Theresa Villiers: The introduction of universal credit in Northern Ireland will make about 102,000 people better off, according to Social Development Minister Nelson McCausland, who also commented that that would lift 10,000 children out of poverty. Our welfare reforms are designed to incentivise work. Getting people into work is the best way to deal with poverty and we will continue to push forward with welfare reform.

Security

Oliver Colvile: What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Pamela Nash: What recent discussions she has had on security in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: The threat level in Northern Ireland remains severe, with persistent planning and targeting by terrorists, as illustrated by the attacks that took place before Christmas. However, action by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners continues to keep those groups under pressure.

Oliver Colvile: Before Christmas, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs went to Belfast and met the Parades Commission. We learnt about the budgetary challenges facing the PSNI. Will my right hon. Friend review giving the Northern Ireland Executive the same powers as all other parts of the UK to levy a policing precept?

Theresa Villiers: The future resourcing of the PSNI is certainly a matter of concern to many in this House. It is within the powers of the Department of Justice to introduce precepting, if it chose to do so. That does not require legislation or further devolution from this House; it is a matter for the Department to decide. Very constructive discussions are underway between the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Justice and the PSNI, with a view to resolving the resourcing question, in particular with regard to the comprehensive spending review year 2015-16.

Pamela Nash: With the public rightly concerned after the stalemate reached in the Haass talks and the severe security threats faced by Christmas shoppers in Belfast, to which the Secretary of State referred, as well as the huge costs of £55,000 a day of policing contentious parades in Northern Ireland, will she tell us whether 2014 is really the right time to be cutting the funds to the PSNI, or are the Government going to reconsider that decision?

Theresa Villiers: The PSNI is actually receiving additional funds from the Government—£200 million over the current spending review period and about £30 million in 2015-16—and as I have said, discussions continue between the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Executive over whether further funding can be added from the Executive in 2015-16.

Laurence Robertson: Patten recommended that in a peaceful situation, the PSNI should have a minimum of 7,500 officers. Given that Northern Ireland is not exactly in that peaceful situation, owing to paramilitary activity, is the Secretary of State concerned about the PSNI’s ability to recruit sufficient officers?

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee for his question and his important work on this issue. The current number of officers in the PSNI is 6,795. The Chief Constable recently told the Policing Board that the minimum number he needed to perform effectively was 6,963. It is important that consideration be given to how the shortfall can be dealt with, and as I have said, I remain optimistic about the ongoing discussions between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Justice about resolving that budgetary shortfall.

Peter Hain: If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Paul Goggins, not only a good friend of mine but a brilliant security Minister who served under me in Northern Ireland. His funeral is tomorrow.
	How can the Secretary of State justify her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), given that the additional security budget, which the PSNI is entitled to apply for, has been halved this year compared with the past three years—and this at a time of rising dissident threats, as we saw in Belfast city centre before Christmas?

Theresa Villiers: It is just not true that it has been halved. The Government take very seriously their security responsibilities in Northern Ireland, which is why we have provided additional funds for the PSNI to deal with the deteriorating security situation we inherited from the previous Government. We will continue to be vigilant. In particular, we will continue to work closely with Irish counterparts on deepening and strengthening the cross-border co-operation that is crucial to keeping Northern Ireland safe and secure.

Nigel Dodds: On policing and security and in the context of the recent Haass talks on the past, especially past terrorist crimes, will the Secretary of State take it from me that Martin McGuinness’s comments last night about extremism are seen by many on both sides of the community as not only untrue but a transparent attempt to distract from Sinn Fein’s abject lack of leadership in addressing its continued glorification of past terrorist crimes, as witnessed in Castlederg this summer, which is causing huge damage to community relations? Will she urge Sinn Fein to stop wallowing in the filth of murder?

Theresa Villiers: I encourage all party leaders to continue working on the Haass issues. Perhaps the more important thing to draw from last night’s meeting of party leaders was the welcome news that they would reassemble next week and that these discussions would continue. There is an important opportunity here still to be seized by the political parties to make real progress on these divisive issues by resolving their differences and reaching agreement.

Nigel Dodds: I, too, want to see those talks take place, and we hope that all parties, including Sinn Fein, will come to the table and negotiate in good faith, but will the Secretary of State recognise that severe damage has been done to policing, and to the capacity of the policing and justice system to tackle the security situation, by decisions such as the one recently to issue one of those most involved in glorifying past terrorist crimes—Gerry Kelly—with an informed warning, rather than to prosecute him, even though the threshold for prosecution was reached, for obstructing the police during a very tense parades situation? Does she not see the damage that this sort of situation is creating?

Theresa Villiers: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I would urge all elected representatives to do all they can to support police officers in the execution of their duties which, in Northern Ireland, can sometimes be extremely difficult and highly sensitive.

Ivan Lewis: As other hon. Members have said, Northern Ireland faces a number of security challenges at the start of this new year: the terrorist threat from dissident republicans and the potential threat to law and order posed by the downgrading of the Parades Commission. In the light of those risks, will the Secretary of State assure us—and give a specific answer—that the PSNI has an adequate number of front-line police officers to cope with these challenges, and, specifically in respect of the terrorist threat, that she is liaising with Home Office colleagues to ensure proper police co-ordination across the United Kingdom?

Theresa Villiers: On the last point, I had the opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland matters with the Home Secretary yesterday, and my officials stay in regular touch with Home Office colleagues. The hon. Gentleman probably did not hear my earlier answer. There are currently 6,795 officers in the PSNI, while the Chief Constable believes that he needs 6,963, so there is a shortfall and the Chief Constable wishes to start recruiting once again. The UK Government are anxious to ensure that that is possible. That is one of the reasons why we have allocated additional national security funding. We are also working with the DOJ to ensure that discussions with the DFP reach a satisfactory conclusion on the Northern Ireland Executive’s contribution.

Ivan Lewis: That shortfall is a serious concern, and it is important that the Secretary of State does something about it.
	Turning to another issue, I had the privilege yesterday of meeting representatives of the Disabled Police Officers Association of Northern Ireland. I heard first hand the moving and disturbing testimonies of retired police officers who suffered lasting physical and mental scars through their work on the front line during the troubles. Does the Secretary of State accept that we owe a great debt of gratitude to these retired officers, and will she make representations to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive about the erosion of their injury pension rights?

Theresa Villiers: The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) met the Disabled Police Officers Association of Northern Ireland, and I would like to associate myself with the shadow Secretary of State’s comments to the effect that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. The representations made at that meeting will, of course, be taken up with the Northern Ireland Executive. My understanding is that decisions on these matters lie primarily within the devolved field.

Welfare Reform

Ian Paisley Jnr: What assessment she has made of the potential effect in Northern Ireland of the Government’s proposed further reductions in welfare expenditure.

Julie Hilling: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the Government's welfare reform policies on Northern Ireland.

Andrew Robathan: We have worked hard with the Executive to adapt our reforms flexibly to the circumstances of Northern Ireland. These reforms will ensure that work always pays and will help to lift people out of poverty by moving them into work. When fully implemented, universal credit will make around 3 million low-to-middle-income households across the UK better off.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The number of people living in poverty in Northern Ireland has increased from 18% in 2002 to 22% in 2013. In reality, that means that one in four people in Ulster earns and lives on a salary that falls below the basic standard of living. Will the Minister take the opportunity to give us an assurance that the cuts—the deeper and further cuts—talked about by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not force more people into poverty in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Robathan: I am not in a position to know what further cuts to the welfare budget the Chancellor may be planning. Northern Ireland receives more than a quarter more in Government spending per head in comparison with constituencies such as mine in England and, indeed, all English constituencies. It is a fact that Nelson McCausland specifically said that more people will be lifted out of poverty by universal credit, including some 10,000 children. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. We are not immune to understanding people’s concerns, but we believe that it is work, not welfare, that will bring prosperity to Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: We are greatly indebted to the Minister.

Julie Hilling: But does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) that Northern Ireland is “getting the best deal” on welfare when changes could potentially take £450 million per annum out of vulnerable people’s pockets?

Andrew Robathan: I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Lady has quoted. What we wish to see is people in work. Unfortunately, the last Government left this country with the most appalling financial and economic catastrophe. All that the hon. Lady, her Front-Bench team and the Leader of the Opposition can suggest is more spending, more borrowing, more taxes and more debt, which will plunge us back into the disaster they left behind.

Mark Durkan: The Chancellor has indicated that he is considering a new regime for annually managed expenditure, with an overall cap on welfare spending. Does the Minister believe that that will entail a cap within a cap for Northern Ireland’s welfare spending, and what discussions is the Northern Ireland Office having with the Treasury and the devolved Administration about the serious implications of such a development?

Andrew Robathan: Officials are always discussing things with the Treasury, Indeed, an excellent young man who works for us has just come from the Treasury to increase liaison.
	Northern Ireland cannot be exempt from that which is affecting the rest of the United Kingdom. The Belfast Telegraph has said that the Northern Irish cannot pretend that they can
	“have it both ways; that we can continue to benefit from the Treasury—we get back more than we raise in taxes—while people in other parts of the UK suffer from the reforms… we cannot expect that situation to continue indefinitely.”
	I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is a serious and grown-up politician, will realise that as well.

Stephen Pound: I am relieved, as the whole House will be, that a “young man” is currently striving to bring light to this area. We wish him well.
	In May 2010 the Conservative party in Northern Ireland, then sailing under the flag of the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists—New Force, or UCUNF, was comprehensively rejected by the voters. In the light of that, how can the Minister justify the continuing distress caused by the rolling threat of the imposition of a £5 million fine on the Northern Ireland Executive, and will he tell us when, this month, the sanction will commence?

Andrew Robathan: If the hon. Gentleman wants to go back to May 2010, I think he might note that the good people of England comprehensively rejected the Labour party and all its works at that time, which I think was pretty sensible of them.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking after the interests of everyone in the United Kingdom. For instance, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been created since 2010, including jobs in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] As has been explained to the Northern Ireland Executive, the sanction on welfare has not yet been imposed because the Treasury cannot impose it unilaterally. But might I say that the First Minister—

Mr Speaker: Order. We have other questions to get through.

Public Order

Sammy Wilson: What recent discussions she has had with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland on public order in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: Public order issues are primarily a matter for the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable, in line with the devolution settlement. However, I meet them both regularly to discuss a range of issues, which often include public order matters.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Secretary of State share the concern felt by many people in Northern Ireland about the apparently partisan way in which the PSNI has dealt with public order offences? On one hand, members of the loyalist community who have been involved in street protests have been arrested, had their homes raided, been refused bail, and gone to jail; on the other hand, a prominent Sinn Fein Member of the Legislative Assembly who obstructed the police and encouraged others to attack them was merely given a warning. Does the Secretary of State not agree that public order offences must be dealt with firmly but also evenly, because otherwise confidence in the police will be lost?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that it is always important for the police to be fair and even-handed, and I believe that they have shown those qualities in dealing with all the public order incidents that have occurred in recent years. I know that they take their duties of fairness, even-handedness and respect for human rights very seriously. I urge those who might become involved in violent protests not to do so, because such action is disastrous for them and negative for the community, and, of course, I urge all elected representatives to support the police in every possible way, given the difficult duties that they must fulfil.

Lady Hermon: Obviously, the need to deal with public order issues and to try to contain the threat from dissident republicans requires an increasing number of police officers. It is therefore extremely worrying that a steady flow of experienced police officers is haemorrhaging away from the Police Service of Northern Ireland every single month. What assurances has the Secretary of State managed to extract from the Treasury that there will be funds to guarantee recruitment to the PSNI?

Theresa Villiers: A guaranteed total of £200 million in the current spending review and £30 million in the next will be provided to assist the PSNI in its national security work, which will of course enable it to be more effective across the board. As I said in response to earlier questions, the Executive and the PSNI are currently discussing the additional funding that will be needed in 2015-16 to enable the PSNI to commence the recruitment that the Chief Constable believes is necessary.

Naomi Long: Given the impact that public order has on policing and budgets in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State agree that the recommendations in the Haass report, which stated that there should be a legally enforceable code of conduct for all parades and protests, would go a long way to changing behaviour on the ground?

Theresa Villiers: There is much to be said for the proposals on parading in draft seven of Richard Haass’s work. It is disappointing that the parties have not felt able to agree with those proposals as yet. Further work is clearly needed before we can get an agreement among the five parties. I urge them to see whether they can find a way to resolve their differences, including on the issue of a code of conduct and what sanctions should accompany it.

Accident and Emergency Doctors

Margaret Ritchie: If she will hold discussions with the responsible Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive on the number of middle-grade accident and emergency doctors in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Andrew Robathan: First, may I say how much I appreciated the hon. Lady’s contribution to the meeting we had yesterday with the disabled police officers in Northern Ireland, to whom we owe a great deal?
	I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about the issues she raises but these are entirely devolved. [Interruption.] The commissioning and provision of medical services in Northern Ireland are matters for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland and the Health and Social Care Board. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is far too much discordant noise in the Chamber. The question must be heard and the Minister’s answers must be heard.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Minister for his answer, but he and the Secretary of State need to be more proactive on this matter because the policy that dictated the lack of A and E doctors emerges from Whitehall and London. Will he and the Secretary of State co-host with the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland a summit to address the shortage in A and E doctors?

Andrew Robathan: Well, we will certainly ensure that we have discussions with the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland. We have had to take some very difficult decisions since 2010, but there are now more than 20% more A and E consultants in England than there were in 2010. We need to go further, but it does take six years to train a doctor and I think all Members, even those on the other side, will have spotted that we were not in power six years ago.

David Simpson: The Minister will be aware that Northern Ireland hospitals have been well served over the years by doctors and nurses from India, Pakistan and Malaysia, but visa restrictions have made it very difficult to get doctors in. Will he speak to his Government colleagues to see whether these restrictions can be removed?

Andrew Robathan: I am very happy to take that up on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I was not aware of that particular problem because it has not been raised with me, but I congratulate the staff in Northern Ireland hospitals, who have had such a great reputation, particularly those at the Royal Victoria hospital which I remember well from when I used to visit it.

Flags/Parades/Protests/Dealing with the Past (Public Funding)

Gregory Campbell: What public funding will be made available to help implement an agreement on flags, parades and protests, and dealing with the past.

Theresa Villiers: I would urge the parties to continue their efforts to reach agreement on these matters. Since these areas fall mainly within the devolved field, funding for them is also devolved to Northern Ireland as part of the block grant.

Gregory Campbell: There will be a waiting public wanting to see whether agreement can be reached on these very comprehensive matters. Will the Secretary of State ensure that whatever funding is needed in addition to the block grant to deliver this can be delivered to ensure a much more peaceful and prosperous future in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that these issues are very important. They are difficult to resolve, and finding an agreed way forward would be very positive for Northern Ireland. However, it is primarily for the Northern Ireland Executive to find the money for these proposals within the block grant they are already allocated, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has pointed out, is considerably higher per head than elsewhere in the UK. We will of course consider proposals for additional funding, but the deficit means I can make no promises as to whether it will be granted.

Haass Talks

Tom Greatrex: What assessment she has made of progress in the Haass talks.

Theresa Villiers: All parties have acknowledged that there are elements of the Haass proposals that they can support. It is important that they continue their negotiations to try to resolve their differences, and the UK Government will continue to support their efforts to do that.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply; I am sure that she was expecting that question. Will she tell us what discussions on these issues she has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, ahead of any possible recommencement of the talks?

Theresa Villiers: I have had regular discussions with Eamon Gilmore on this matter, including a number of meetings in Northern Ireland and in Dublin. We are keen to work together to encourage the finding of a way forward, and to encourage the political parties in Northern Ireland to reconcile their differences and get an agreement over the line.

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the Secretary of State’s positive comments on the Haass process. Does she agree that much has been achieved and that we should now implement as much of that as possible by creating the necessary legislation and resolving the remaining differences?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that considerable progress has been achieved. These issues are incredibly divisive, and the fact that all five political parties have found a degree of common ground is very welcome. I also agree that we should keep up the momentum and seize this opportunity to get an agreement over the line and to reconcile the differences that still exist among the five parties.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Keith Vaz: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 January.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Keith Vaz: Launched last week, Action on Sugar aims to reduce the sugar content of food and drinks by up to 30% because of the twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Voluntary arrangements with manufacturers, though well intentioned, have not worked. Will the Prime Minister meet a delegation of health experts to discuss this issue, and may we enlist his support in the war on sugar by asking him to give up sugar and sugary drinks for one day this week?

David Cameron: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s last proposal will have the strong support of Mrs Cameron, so I will take it up if I possibly can. I commend him for raising this matter and for speaking out on the issues of diabetes and obesity with such consistency, because they are major health concerns for our country. We are taking them very seriously, and we are rolling out the NHS health check programme to identify all those aged between 40 and 74 who are at risk of diabetes. Childhood obesity rates are falling, but more needs to be done. I am happy to facilitate discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We take this issue very seriously, and we think that the responsibility deal has achieved great things, but there is more to be done.

Henry Smith: Last week I had the honour of opening the new Network Rail regional operating centre at Three Bridges in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what investment the Government are putting into the existing rail work to help commuters and travellers as part of the long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: investing in infrastructure is a key part of our long-term economic plan to ensure that Britain’s economy can be a success now and in the future. We have seen major investment in the south-east, with Thameslink, Crossrail and East West Rail all delivering new services for London and the south-east. I can also tell my hon. Friend that, between 2015 and 2020, we are planning to invest more than £56 billion in roads, rail and local transport. It is important to make the point that that is more than three times as much as the planned investment in HS2, so I say to those who fear that HS2 will take all the investment that it will not. Three times as much will be spent elsewhere.

Edward Miliband: RBS is expected to ask the Government to approve bonuses of more than 100% on multi-million pound salaries. Does the Prime Minister think that that is acceptable?

David Cameron: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that we will continue with our plans for RBS that have seen bonuses come down by 85% and a bonus pool at one third the level it was under Labour. I can confirm today that, just as we have had limits on cash bonuses of £2,000 at RBS this year and last year, we will do the same next year as well.

Edward Miliband: We can all agree with the general sentiments that the right hon. Gentleman expresses about bonuses, but today I am asking him a very specific question. RBS is talking to parts of the Government
	about the proposal to pay over 100% bonuses. He is the Prime Minister, the taxpayer will foot the bill, so will he put a stop to it right now by telling RBS to drop this idea?

David Cameron: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what we are saying to RBS: if there are any proposals to increase the overall pay—that is, the pay and bonus bill—at RBS, at the investment bank, we will veto them. What a pity that the previous Government never took an approach like that. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. However long it takes, the questions will be heard and the answers will be heard.

Edward Miliband: I am not asking about increases in pay and bonuses; I am asking a very simple question about the proposal that is expected to come forward from RBS to pay more than 100% bonuses on pay. We know that when RBS is making a loss, when it itself says that it has been failing small businesses and when these kinds of bonuses lead to risky one-way bets, it should not be allowed to happen. When ordinary families are facing a cost of living crisis, surely the right hon. Gentleman can say that for people earning £1 million a bonus of £1 million should be quite enough.

David Cameron: If the right hon. Gentleman is not asking me about the overall pay and bonuses at RBS, why on earth isn’t he? That is what he should be asking about. I have said very clearly that the remuneration—the total pay bill—at that investment bank must come down. I am getting a lecture from him, yet from his Government we had the biggest bust anywhere in the world with RBS, 125% mortgages at Northern Rock and all the embarrassment about Fred Goodwin. He comes here every week to complain about a problem created by the Labour party—last week it was betting, this week it is banking. He rises up with all the moral authority of Rev. Flowers, but where is the apology for the mess they made of RBS in the first place?

Paul Burstow: In the past two years, my local council’s Opportunity Sutton growth plan has created £317 million of inward investment, halved youth unemployment and seen record numbers of new businesses starting up. Sutton is also home to the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden hospital. Given that life sciences are an engine of innovation and growth, what support will the Government give to realise Sutton’s plan for a life sciences cluster based around those world- renowned centres of excellence?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the strength that Sutton has. Obviously, we have the patent box to attract life science businesses to Britain; we also have the investment in apprenticeships, which is very important; and, of course, as he knows, the Office for Life Sciences brings together the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Health to help bring life sciences jobs here. Working with local enterprise partnerships, there is a great opportunity for more investment in these very important businesses.

David Lammy: The Mark Duggan inquest concluded last week with a verdict of lawful killing. It also found errors in the police investigation. Last week also saw PC Wallis admitting that he lied
	about the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Does the Prime Minister accept it is now urgent that we reform the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

David Cameron: First, I commend what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of people respecting the outcome of the inquest. We have proper legal processes in this country and we should respect their outcomes. He also knows that there is an ongoing IPCC investigation into that case, and we should let it do its work. I am always prepared to look at reforms of organisations such as this. There was a big reform some years ago to make the IPCC much more independent.

David Lammy: indicated dissent.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head and saying it is not working. I am very happy to look at the arguments.
	On the issue of PC Wallis, it was deeply shocking to see an e-mail that purported to be from someone who had witnessed an event, whom we are told is a member of the public but turns out to be a serving police officer. That was deeply troubling and deeply disturbing, so I am not saying that all is well. The vast majority of the British police service do a magnificent job. They put their lives on the line for us day after day and we should always recall that, but I am happy to look at proposals for how we can strengthen these arrangements.

Andrew Bingham: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Street Crane Company in my constituency? May I invite him or the Chancellor to see how, with D2N2 local enterprise partnership money from the regional growth fund, it is embarking on the first phase of a £1.1 billion expansion programme, which will total £2.7 million and increase jobs by 20%? Its exports across the world demonstrate the power of British business and the fact that it, like this Government, has a long-term economic plan.

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. We have seen the regional growth fund produce some real economic success stories, and that is being combined with our long-time economic plan to encourage businesses to take on employees, to put in place the infrastructure and, as he says, to back exports in terms of Britain’s performance and get out there and sell to the world.

Cathy Jamieson: Given that we have recently heard reports that half a dozen terror suspects could soon be released on to our streets, can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that public safety will not be compromised or put at risk once the Government’s latest experiment with terrorism controls expires?

David Cameron: I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that we will always take every step necessary to keep the British public safe. I think the terrorism prevention and investigation measures are working well. It is a complete myth to pretend that control orders could be kept in place forever. Many people were taken off control orders during the existence of TPIMs. I
	always listen very carefully to the head of the Metropolitan Police Service and to the heads of the Security Service who are involved in drawing up those measures and who advise us on how best to keep our country safe.

Daniel Kawczynski: In the first six months of last year, Shrewsbury benefited from the highest number of business start-ups in our town’s history. Now the unemployed claimant count is down to 2.5% in Shrewsbury. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising Shrewsbury’s entrepreneurial spirit, and also redouble Government efforts, through UK Trade & Investment in the west midlands, to help more Shrewsbury firms to export?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeing an enterprise revolution in our country again. There are 400,000 more businesses in existence today compared with 2010. The point he makes about small businesses and exports is particularly important. Currently, one in five of them exports. If we could turn that into one in four, we would wipe out our trade deficit. I absolutely support the excellent work that he does to call UKTI to account and to encourage it to do everything it can to back Britain’s entrepreneurs.

Edward Miliband: There are sites all over the country with planning permission that have the capacity for a quarter of a million—sorry, 250,000—houses where nothing is happening, some of which are being hoarded by developers. I am in favour of giving powers to say to developers who hold land without building on it, “Use it or lose it.” The Prime Minister said the policy was nuts. Does he still believe that?

David Cameron: We have just had a demonstration of the grasp of maths that was involved at the Treasury. It is no wonder that we had banks collapsing and all the rest of it.
	House building is picking up: we are seeing a big increase in housing starts and housing completions. Why I think the right hon. Gentleman’s policy is, as he kindly puts it, “nuts” is that if we say to developers and companies that we will confiscate land unless they build, they will not go ahead with the building in the first place. His approach is to put a freeze on the whole of development, rather than to get Britain building, which is what we need to happen.

Edward Miliband: I have to say that the Prime Minister is incredibly complacent. House completions are at their lowest level since 1924. I am interested in what he says about the policy, because his own Housing Minister has said that the policy might make a contribution, and the Mayor of London says:
	“We should be able to have a use it or lose it clause…Developers should be under no illusions that they can just sit on their land and wait for prices to go up.”
	So is the policy nuts or is it the right thing to do?

David Cameron: What we need to keep going with are the policies of this Government, which are seeing house building increase. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like the facts, but nearly 400,000 new homes have been delivered since 2010, housing starts in the last quarter were at their highest level for
	five years—89% higher than the trough in 2009 when he was sitting in the Cabinet—and there has been a 16% increase in housing starts over the past 12 months compared with the year before. His shadow Ministers go around opposing our planning reforms, even though they are important to get Britain building, and time and again they criticise proposals such as Help to Buy that are helping our fellow countrymen and women to realise the dream of home ownership, so here is a question that he needs to answer: if he cares about house building and home ownership, why not make Labour councils get on with selling council houses to hard-working people?

Edward Miliband: In Labour councils, they are building far more houses than in Tory councils. Frankly, I am still no clearer at the end of this exchange what the Prime Minister thinks about the “use it or lose it” policy. His Housing Minister says that he supports it, the Mayor of London says he supports it, but the Prime Minister does not know what he thinks. Here is the reality: he is not doing enough to close the gap between supply and demand. The truth is that the number of social housing starts is down, he has shelved his plans for new towns and rents are rising. Does he accept that Britain is building 100,000 fewer homes than we need to meet demand?

David Cameron: Of course we need to build new homes. That is why we have reformed the planning system, which the Opposition opposed; it is why we have Help to Buy, which they oppose; and it is why we are helping in all the ways we are to get Britain building. We are seeing the right hon. Gentleman having to jump around all over the place: when it started off, deficit reduction was not going to work, but now he cannot make that argument; then we needed plan B, but now he cannot make that argument; next it was about the cost of living, but yesterday we saw inflation fall to 2%. What we see is a Government who have a long-term economic plan and an Opposition who do not have a clue.

Paul Maynard: May I welcome the Government’s renewed commitment to ensuring that my local communities benefit from the potential of shale gas? May I urge the Prime Minister to do more to encourage the companies and the scientific community to do more to resolve the understandable and legitimate concerns that residents have about the technology and about the potential environmental impact?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue and make the remarks that he does. I think that shale has huge potential for our country. If we recovered just 7% of the Bowland shale reserves, that would provide us with gas in this country for 30 years. We must clearly do a far better job, however, of explaining the benefits to communities, of working with them on that and of talking frankly about the process. A huge number of myths are being put around to frighten people about shale gas extraction whereas, as we can see in the United States, it can be extracted safely and cleanly, providing effective low-cost and green energy for our homes and businesses and making our country more competitive at the same time.

Ian Lavery: As we sit in this Chamber, six British nationals, including Nick Dunn, a former paratrooper, are languishing in prison in Chennai after being taken prisoner from a ship off Tamil Nadu. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and other representatives from this House to discuss the issue and see whether we can get those former paratroopers released from prison?

David Cameron: I know how important this issue is and I raised it personally with Indian Government Ministers when I was in India recently. I have discussed it with the Foreign Secretary and I shall go on making sure that we do everything we can. If a meeting needs to be arranged between Members of the House of Commons representing their constituents—I believe that one is a constituent of the Foreign Secretary himself—I am happy to arrange that.

Iain Stewart: Investing in research and innovation is essential for our economic future. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Open university’s smart city research project to improve infrastructure is just one example of how Milton Keynes is leading the way in securing our long-term economic plans?

David Cameron: I have visited the Open university at Milton Keynes. It is an extremely impressive organisation that is also leading a very important export drive for our universities. I congratulate Milton Keynes on its representation on the smart cities forum and on what the Open university is doing. There are many opportunities for Milton Keynes, not least those provided by HS2, and I look forward to discussing them with my hon. Friend in future.

Chris Evans: Constituents tell me all the time that they cannot afford food, cannot afford to keep warm in winter and cannot afford to put petrol in their cars to go to work, all because their wages are not going far enough. Does the Prime Minister finally accept that the cost of living is stretching families in Islwyn and constituencies such as mine to breaking point?

David Cameron: I totally accept that we are still recovering from the great recession that took £3,000 out of the typical family’s income, but what we are seeing now is more people in work, including in Wales. We are seeing real wages starting to rise, and I think that we can be confident. Yes, it is difficult; yes, it is still hard work; but our economy is growing, and we want that to be a recovery for everyone in our country.

Jesse Norman: The number of people in Hereford and South Herefordshire in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance fell by 31% between November 2012 and November 2013. Youth unemployment fell by an even more impressive 40%. Does the Prime Minister share my view that the Government’s long-term plan is already giving employers the confidence to get hiring again?

David Cameron: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says, because an absolutely key part of our long-term economic plan is to see a growing number of people in work in our country. We see 1.2 million more
	people in work. In the west midlands, employment has risen by 60,000 since the election. Private sector employment is up 64,000. There is still further to go, particularly in the west midlands, where we need to get young people in particular back to work, but the figures in his constituency are very encouraging.

Tom Watson: On his Amritsar inquiry, instead of ordering the civil servant to investigate, why does the Prime Minister not just ask Lords Geoffrey Howe and Leon Brittan what they agreed with Margaret Thatcher and whether it had anything to do with the Westland helicopter deal at the time?

David Cameron: I fear that the hon. Gentleman might have gone a conspiracy theory too fast on this one. Look, it is very important that we get to the bottom of what happened, and that is why I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to lead this review. He will establish this urgently and establish the facts. The process is under way. I want it to be fast; I want it to find out the truth; and the findings will be made public.
	I remember and will never forget my visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar. It is one of the most beautiful and serene places anywhere on this planet, and what happened at Amritsar 30 years ago led to a tragic loss of life. It remains a source of deep pain to Sikhs everywhere. Prime Minister Singh, in my view, was absolutely right to apologise for what has happened, and I completely understand the concerns that these papers raise, so let us wait for the outcome of the review by Sir Jeremy Heywood.
	I do not want to prejudge the outcome, but I would note that, so far, it has not found any evidence to contradict the insistence by senior Indian army commanders responsible at the time that, on the responsibility for this, it was planned and carried out solely by the Indian army. It is important to put that, but we do need an inquiry, so that we can get to the bottom of this.

John Stevenson: On 30 January, I will be hosting Carlisle skills fair for 70 businesses and training organisations, targeting 14 to 25-year-olds with training and job opportunities. If Carlisle is to prosper, it needs a skilled work force and successful businesses. Will the Prime Minister give his support to this event, and will he confirm that he and his Government will remain committed to training and upskilling the young, so that they benefit personally and local and national businesses succeed?

David Cameron: I commend my hon. Friend for what he is carrying out in Carlisle. Jobs and skills fairs, encouraging young people to think about apprenticeships and encouraging businesses to train people in apprenticeships, are some of the most important things that we can do. We have got 1.5 million apprenticeships started since the election. Over 250,000 apprenticeships have started in the north-west under this Government, including in his constituency, and we must keep up this good work.

Pat McFadden: The Prime Minister will be aware of the grave concern among British Sikhs about the
	reports in recent days of UK involvement in Operation Blue Star to storm the Golden Temple. He will also be aware that the broader events of 1984 in India resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Sikhs and that this has left lasting grief and pain in the Sikh community here in the UK and around the world. This is an open wound, which will not heal until the full truth is told. So, on the process that the Prime Minister has set up, will he ensure that there is full disclosure of all Government papers and information from that time and that there is also, following that, a proper statement in the House, where Ministers can be questioned about this?

David Cameron: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the deep scars that this event left and the incredibly strong feelings that exist to this day. As I say, anyone who visits the Golden Temple at Amritsar and sees what an extraordinary place of peace and tranquillity it is and what an important site it is for the Sikh religion knows how powerful this point is. We will make sure that the inquiry is held properly and its findings will be made public, which is vitally important. In the end no one should take away the responsibility for these events from the people who are properly responsible for them, and I am sure that the inquiry will find that. In terms of making a statement and revealing this information and the findings to the House, I will listen carefully to what he says, but a statement might well be the right approach.

Tessa Munt: Will the Prime Minister speak to his colleagues across Government about the funding resulting from incentives for fracking being passed directly to parishes, so that those communities that feel the impact of fracking are those that choose how that money is spent, rather than having to compete with district and county councils’ other priorities?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. What we have set out is the overall level of financial support: £100,000 when a well is dug; up to £10 million, theoretically, because of the 1% of revenue that will be paid; and then this absolutely vital point about 100% retention of business rates, which could have a very significant effect for local government finance. The point that she makes is how that is divided up between parishes, districts and counties, and whether one looks at individual payments to individual households who might be inconvenienced. I think that we should look at very local options, making sure that parishes and individuals will benefit. That is something that colleagues will want to discuss and think about, so that we can get this right and help this industry to take off.

Siobhain McDonagh: I am not sure whether Members are aware that anyone joining the police force will now have to pay £1,000 for a certificate before they even fill in the application form. A £1,000 bobby tax will make it harder for the police to look like the community that it serves and that I represent. It will put off young people from poorer backgrounds and ethnic minorities from joining the police. We all know that the Prime Minister admires characters such as Harry Flashman, but
	charging for Army commissions was abolished in 1871. Why is it being introduced for the police in the 21st century?

David Cameron: I listened very carefully to what the hon. Lady said. What we are trying to do through the College of Policing is even further to professionalise this vital profession, but I will make sure that the Home Secretary contacts her about this particular issue.

Angie Bray: What is the point of anyone clinging on to a plan B when plan A is so obviously working?

David Cameron: It is not just plan B that we are not hearing about any more. The Opposition seem to have stopped talking about the cost of living. They have stopped talking about how the deficit would not come down. Remember when they told us that growth would never come. They told us that we would lose a million jobs rather than gain a million jobs. But the biggest transformation of all is the silence of the shadow Chancellor. There is a big debate today on banking, but he was not allowed on the radio and he will not be speaking in the House of Commons. They have a novel idea: to hide their shadow Chancellor by leaving him on the Front Bench.

Naomi Long: The Prime Minister has previously shown considerable leadership in apologising to victims of state violence in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, those victims of paramilitary violence who made up the majority of victims of the troubles have not had access to such apologies. Does he agree that the Haass proposals for dealing the past offer the best opportunity for victims and survivors to receive truth and justice? Will he commit as Prime Minister to backing those proposals, helping by co-operating and also by funding those proposals?

David Cameron: There is a lot of merit in the Haass proposals—he did some excellent work. I noted that Peter Robinson, the First Minister of Northern Ireland, described them as providing the architecture for future agreement and discussion. I hope that we can take forward the Haass work, including the very difficult work done on the past, with all sides trying to agree.

Simon Hart: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is a follower of “Benefits Street” on Channel 4, but if he is, he will know that, sadly, there is a street like that in every constituency in the land. Does he agree that, as part of our long-term economic plans, we make sure that the benefit system is there for people who need it, it is not a lifestyle choice, and people do not get trapped in it?

David Cameron: I have managed to catch only a small amount of that programme, but I think that it brings home two vital points: first, we need a welfare system that is tailored to ensure that work always pays;
	and secondly, many people in our country have multiple disadvantages and problems and so need help to get out of poverty and benefit dependency. So it is not just about tailoring a benefit system to make work pay; it is about making sure that we intervene in people’s lives and try to correct the things that are keeping them out of work and out of earning a decent living.

Jack Straw: May I say to the Prime Minister, as someone who strongly supports shale gas extraction by fracking, that his current package, however well intentioned, will not assuage local communities, which on a cross-party basis in Lancashire have treated his latest offers as near derisory? Why can he and the Chancellor not sit down with the cross-party Local Government Association and negotiate on its proposal for 10% of revenues to be shared with local communities, as happens in other countries?

David Cameron: I thought that the proposal from some Members was that it should be 10% of profits. My point is that 1% of revenues, which obviously start running the moment shale gas starts coming out of the ground, could well be a better offer. I am very happy to sit down with anybody to discuss the issue, because I think that shale is so important for the future of our country. The point I would make, having been on Monday to see the oil platforms that are already on the Nottinghamshire-Lincolnshire border, is that those went ahead without any of the sorts of community benefits that we are promising with shale: £100,000 when a well is dug, before any gas has reached the surface; 1% of revenues, which could be between £7 million and £10 million for a typical fracking well; and 100% retention of business rates, which for a set of wells could be £1.7 million, or even £2 million, for a local authority. Hon. Members should think about how much council tax a small district or metropolitan authority raises and consider the difference that £1.7 million or £2 million in revenue could make. By all means let us talk about the facts and figures and what we can do, but we also need to persuade people that this can go ahead without the environmental damage or the problems that people are worried about. Those are the concerns more than anything.

Andrew Bridgen: The Leader of the Opposition has said, “What Hollande is doing in France I want to do in Britain.” Given recent events across the channel, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is completely at odds with our long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: I did not catch all of President Hollande’s press conference yesterday, because I was appearing in front of the Liaison Committee, but one thing that I did notice is that the French proposals now are to cut spending in order to cut taxes in order to make the economy more competitive. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor, in his new silent form, will want to consider some of those ideas and recognise that this revolution of making business more competitive and trying to win in the global race is a proper plan for the economy.

Point of Order

Alex Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would very much welcome your guidance. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 9 October last year—14 weeks ago today—about an issue raised by my constituent, Kerry Bouskill, on child protection and the Childhood Lost campaign. She was concerned about young people reporting abuse often not being believed and how that can be a deterrent. The question on behalf of my constituent was simple enough: will the Home Secretary outline the steps taken by the Government to strengthen child protection? On 18 November my office contacted the Home Secretary’s office, but nobody called back. On 19 November I was told that I would have an answer within a week. On 2 December I was advised that changes were needed to the letter before sign-off. On 11 December I was advised that the letter was awaiting a signature. On 20 December the matter had been passed to the office of the Minister for Crime Prevention and I was told that I would receive a letter over the Christmas recess. On 8 and 9 January my office contacted his office, but again we received no call back. On 10 January I was again advised that the letter was awaiting a signature, but I have still received nothing. I would appreciate your advice.

Mr Speaker: In all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, no one in the House or outside it could accuse him of excluding from his point of order any matter that he considered in any way to be material to the thrust of his complaint. As a consequence, I feel sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will now be fully familiar with the chronology of events that so dissatisfies him. Suffice it to say that he has certainly waited an inordinately long time for a response to his inquiries. His point of order will have been heard very clearly by those on the Treasury Bench; the Leader of the House is sitting there. I hope that hearing it will cause the Government to react in a timely way so that the hon. Gentleman’s questions are answered. I should also say to him that the Procedure Committee monitors the performance of Departments in answering parliamentary questions, and he may wish to draw the facts of this case to the attention of the Clerk of that Committee and possibly its illustrious Chairman, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

United Kingdom Register of Places

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andrew Rosindell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Commission to establish and maintain a national register of places within the United Kingdom, including but not limited to countries, counties, cities, towns, villages and hamlets, with a permanent identity defined by historical, social and geographical boundaries, separate from existing administrative and electoral boundaries; to grant each such place the right to its own coat of arms, flag and other symbols of local identity; and for connected purposes.
	The United Kingdom today is a vibrant tapestry of distinct places comprising four countries—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and a patchwork of counties from Caithness to Cornwall, Kent to Pembrokeshire, Norfolk to Antrim, Flintshire to Fermanagh, and Dunbartonshire to Dorset. Our historic counties, as distinct from administrative county areas, are real places that people take enormous pride in, but today they have no official status. My Bill would change that. Then there are our great cities, from Edinburgh to Exeter, London to Londonderry, Cardiff to Colchester, and Belfast to Birmingham, and our historic regions, such as the peak district, the black country, Snowdonia, East Anglia, the Cotswolds and the highlands. Islands too are places with their own distinct identity, from Shetland, Orkney and Lewis to Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight, and they also form part of our nation’s great heritage; and in each of our constituencies there are historic towns, neighbourhoods, villages and hamlets, all with their own unique identity. But over the years the identity of very many of these places has been eroded by changes to local government boundaries, parliamentary boundary revisions and the redrawing of council wards, where all too often artificial names are used and where parts of one area are sliced off to make up the electoral numbers in another. Over the years, one change has been compounded by another to create very many anomalies and muddled identities. All that now needs to be put right, with these real places, their boundaries and genuine identities given permanent protection from the hands of the bureaucrats.
	Take, for example, my own constituency and the community of Rush Green, where I was born. Rush Green is divided between two London boroughs, two constituencies, two electoral wards and two London Assembly constituencies, even though the whole of Rush Green is historically and geographically a part of Romford. Local government boundaries have not been drawn up with the actual communities in mind.
	Another example, in London, is the twin villages of Hampstead and Highgate, divided between four London boroughs, no less, all competing to promote their own identities over that of the historic villages themselves. My Bill will stop the Camdenisation of places such as Hampstead and ensure that local authorities have a duty to preserve and uphold identities of genuine towns and villages that have been around far longer than these local government constructs, which love to promote their own corporate identity over and above that of real places. My Bill will provide for the permanent registration of the actual places that exist in our nation, with their boundaries and identities completely separated and distinct from administrative and electoral boundaries.
	The Post Office, too, will be duty bound to ensure that postal addresses truly reflect real place names. Indeed, the United Kingdom register of places would be the point of reference for all public bodies, Government Departments, organisations and institutions to refer to in future.
	Our counties and regions, great cities and towns, neighbourhoods, villages, hamlets and islands are places with an identity that is cherished by the people who live there. In essence, such places exist due to a prevailing sense of community spirit and the pride people have in the place they come from, and yet there is no official system in Britain where all are listed and given the recognition they deserve.
	As many hon. Members will know, I am particularly proud to come from the town of Romford, which I represent in this House. It lies in the traditional county of Essex, which in turn forms a part of my country of England. I also identify strongly with my local neighbourhood of Marshalls Park, where I grew up and went to school and where my family home remains to this day. Marshalls Park does not, however, exist as a defined place.
	My Bill will define, for the first time, all such places in a national register of names, location and precise boundaries as entities entirely separate from existing local authority, administrative and electoral boundaries: in other words, real places not made up by boundary commissions, local authorities or Whitehall bureaucrats.
	There will be significant benefits in doing this. In particular, there will be much greater scope for the collection of data, as they would be permanently based on actual towns, villages and neighbourhoods, thereby creating a consistent area to measure changes and collate statistics, rather than changeable local authority or ward boundaries. It would also have a positive impact on community cohesion, helping to encourage a greater sense of local identity across our nation. As all Members will be aware, the drawing of administrative and electoral boundaries has systematically failed to take into account
	the importance of community identity and of the historical and geographical factors that have led to community development.
	By creating a UK register of places, there will be, for the first time, definite and clear boundaries for all counties, regions, towns, cities, neighbourhoods, villages and hamlets, which would be taken into consideration when redrawing administrative and electoral boundaries. Indeed, this Bill will ensure that the national register of places is taken into account during any future boundary revisions, and that defined places will no longer be divided and carved up in an arbitrary way.
	Polling districts should be created within the defined places. They, rather than the much larger electoral wards, could then form the building blocks of any future parliamentary boundary review. As polling districts are smaller units, their use to attain the correct number of electors would avoid the huge upheavals and divisions of towns and communities of previous boundary reviews.
	My Bill aims to strengthen local communities, uphold local identities and encourage people to foster a sense of pride and local patriotism in the place where they live. It will give all places the opportunity to adopt their own symbols of local identity, such as a coat of arms or a flag, that could be included on village and town signs and municipal buildings or used for a wide variety of purposes. It will redraw the map back to what it should cover—the genuine boundaries of our towns, villages, counties, cities and hamlets across these islands of ours. It will restore local identity, local patriotism and pride in the places where we live, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Andrew Rosindell, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Albert Owen, Ian Paisley, Priti Patel, Greg Mulholland, Sheryll Murray, Mr James Gray, Adam Afriyie, Mr Henry Bellingham, Sir Tony Cunningham and Jim Dobbin present the Bill.
	Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 154).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[17th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Banking

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that Government reforms have failed to deliver a competitive banking system which serves the interests of consumers or the needs of businesses and the British economy; is concerned that customers have limited choice and low levels of trust and confidence in the banking market; is disappointed that recent legislation has fallen short of the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking which called for action to diversify the sector and ensure that major new banking service providers are created; believes that banker remuneration remains unacceptably high; regrets the fact that it has taken the EU to act to rein in excessive bonuses in Britain in the absence of domestic action, but believes that the Government as a majority shareholder in RBS should not approve any request to increase the cap; and calls on the Government to prevent a return to business-as-usual in the banking sector, which continues to require real reform and competition so that the UK can earn its way out of the cost of living crisis.
	Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] My apologies, Mr Speaker; I correct my first sentence. I want to explain to the House that for many of our constituents—[Interruption]—including those of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), January can often be a difficult month financially, with families facing higher fuel bills and receiving credit card statements for the often very expensive Christmas period. Not everyone has such reactions to the new year, however, because for many of the luckiest bankers working in the City, January and February is party time—bonus season—when their high salaries are often dwarfed by even higher windfalls, which are enough to make a lottery winner look on in envy.
	Last week, the City recruitment company Astbury Marsden reported that bonuses for the most senior staff in banking and financial services may increase by as much as 44% in this bonus season, despite all Ministers’ talk about how such payouts have been scaled back. In 2012, the financial sector paid out an eye-watering £14 billion in bonuses to top staff. At least £1.7 billion of bonuses were held back until just after that fateful day last April when the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut the top rate of tax for the richest 1%, who are those with earnings of more than £150,000 per year. Incidentally, the postponed payouts cost the public purse at least £85 million in lost taxes.
	What about the rainmakers, as they are sometimes called—the most senior traders or masters of the universe? The number of UK bankers who earn more than £800,000 rose by 11% to 2,714 last year, which is more than in the rest of Europe combined. For that set of senior bankers, the compensation—a word that the banking sector sometimes uses instead of the word pay that the rest of us use—rose from £1.1 million to more than £1.6 million in 2012. That does not look like an industry that is licking its wounds; it looks like business as usual.

Tobias Ellwood: The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury seems to have glossed over the fact that City bonuses tripled in the last five years of the Labour Government. I want to ask him
	a more general question. Given the catastrophic role that the banking industry played in the economic downturn, why are we having only a half day’s debate on this important subject and squeezing it together with another important debate on the national minimum wage? The Treasury Committee is also meeting this afternoon to talk about these issues with the Governor and one of the deputy governors of the Bank of England. The Committee’s members will therefore not be able to participate in this debate. I wonder whether that is a reflection of the fact that Labour is not taking this matter as seriously as it should.

Christopher Leslie: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has alighted on the best criticism of the fact that we are having an Opposition debate today on the failures in the banking sector. He is a bit off message because he at least admits that it was the banks that got us into the economic catastrophe in the first place. That is slightly off the script that Ministers usually use.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree not only that this is a good day to have this debate, but that most of the people in Huddersfield, whom I represent, and in this country cannot understand the culture of bonuses for bankers? These people have failed us and have failed small businesses and start-ups, and yet they have a bonus culture that is unlike anything else in the country.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is right to speak of the anger that his constituents feel. While many of his constituents and mine are struggling with the cost of living crisis, what has been the Chancellor’s response to the concerns about, and the evidence of, excessive pay? Does the Chancellor regret the millionaires’ tax cut or missing another year of the bankers’ bonus tax? Does he reflect on the outrage among the public, which my hon. Friend has expressed, who want leadership in tackling such brazen rewards? No; the response of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to oppose even the most basic transparency, which would let shareholders know about bankers who are paid more than £1 million, and to oppose any action in the UK to tackle the excessive bonus culture.
	The Chancellor’s response to public concern was to travel to Brussels in September last year to oppose Europe-wide moves to limit bonus payouts to no more than 100% of salary levels for those who are on £400,000 or more, unless there is approval from shareholders. The Chancellor continues to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees to fight that new EU rule tooth and nail, even though it has only just come into force.

Stephen Mosley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that under this Government, bonuses have more than halved?

Christopher Leslie: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was at the beginning of my speech, but City analysts are predicting that the bonus round for 2013 will see an increase of 44%. I do not know whether he thinks that that is acceptable or whether many of his constituents are receiving increases in their pay of 44%, but I would bet that they are not.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that although bonuses may have been halved, in banks such as RBS, which is still making losses and denying the finance that is needed to businesses across the United Kingdom, bankers bonuses are still sometimes in excess of twice their salaries?

Christopher Leslie: That is exactly the issue that we are debating.
	For all the sophistry and smoke-and-mirrors attempts by Ministers, including the Prime Minister earlier today, to give the impression that they are taking action on bonuses, we know that they confront a key decision because of the new Europe-wide decision to limit bonuses. However they try to spin their way out of it, they will have to confront that decision. It is a matter of national embarrassment that UK policy on bankers bonuses was not led by the UK Treasury. Now that we have a bonus ratio in statute, albeit from the European Union, surely the Minister will not cast his shareholder vote, on behalf of the taxpayer, to allow state-owned banks to shell out bonuses that are above the level of their salaries.

Jesse Norman: It is deplorable that this debate has been scheduled during a Treasury Committee hearing. As a member of that Committee, I have seen over the past few months and years the attempts to clear up the appalling wreckage that was left in 2010. Is it not true that under the last Government, this country ran a budget deficit of 3% at the top of the economic cycle and that we had the highest levels in recorded history of personal and household debt?

Christopher Leslie: There they go again, denying that the banks had any responsibility whatever for the global financial crisis. Obviously, it was Labour’s investment in schools and hospitals that caused the devastation in dozens of countries worldwide and recession across—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) is usually the epitome of the cerebral philosopher; an air of calm usually exudes from his every orifice. He has become uncharacteristically over-excited. He must calm himself, consider the merits of yoga and listen to what the shadow Chief Secretary has to say.

Christopher Leslie: I now have an image in my mind, Mr Speaker, but we will move on.
	I want to pin down the position that the Prime Minister was trying to spin in Prime Minister’s questions. The market expectations are that the loss-making RBS will pay about £500 million in bonuses in 2013, despite the string of allegations about LIBOR fixing and the accusations that it forced viable businesses into default in a bid to seize their assets on the cheap. When life is getting harder for so many households and bank lending to businesses is falling, it cannot be right for the Chancellor to approve a doubling of the bank bonus cap when the taxpayer has a stake.

Andrew Gwynne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Leslie: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I want to finish this point.
	The Prime Minister gave the clear impression at Prime Minister’s Question Time that he would veto higher pay and bonuses. Perhaps he was unintentionally misleading in the way that he made that point. He might want to come back to correct the record. Some of us think that he was conveniently looking at the total remuneration at RBS as a device to slip out of the question about how he will exercise the shareholder vote.
	The House needs to know that RBS has reduced the number of bankers on its roll by about 2,000 in the past year. One would therefore expect its pay bill to fall, and so it should, but that does not get it out of answering the question about the individual senior bankers who are earning £400,000 or more. Will the shareholder, in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer, give them permission not just to have bonuses of 100% of their salaries, but to bust through that and go to 200% of their salaries? That is a crucial test for the Chancellor. Whatever the sophistry and warm words we might get from the Prime Minister, they cannot wriggle out of confronting that decision.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a question of leadership? If leadership is not shown by the banking sector itself, it is for this House and this Government to show leadership. My constituents cannot understand why these people live in a stratosphere in which they are under no moral or financial obligation to behave properly. Let us show some leadership on this matter in today’s vote.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is right. The motion states explicitly that the Chancellor should exercise his role as the majority shareholder to prevent an extreme approach to bonuses.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend will know that on 1 January the EU bankers bonus cap came in and it restricts the payment of bonuses to not more than the amount of a salary on a 1:1 ratio. Does it not tell the House all we need to know about this Government’s attitude towards bankers bonuses that their first action is to submit a legal challenge to the European Court of Justice against the EU cap?

Christopher Leslie: One of the questions I have for the Minister is precisely about how much it is costing the taxpayer, in all those legal fees to hire barristers, to try to overturn the bankers bonus cap. I will be happy to give way to the Minister if he has an update for the House on whether the figure is £100,000, £200,000 or £300,000. How much is being spent on legal fees? The Minister’s eyes are not gazing across the Chamber at this point, so perhaps he will come back to that in his speech.
	I wanted to quote for my hon. Friends something that the Chancellor said in August 2009, when he was in Opposition:
	“It is totally unacceptable for bank bonuses to be paid on the back of taxpayer guarantees. It must stop.”
	That is the position the public were led to believe the Chancellor would take when in office. Strangely, that does not seem to be the position he takes now.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important indeed to establish the amount of money that is being paid to individuals, such as the £5.8 million in the year ending 2010 to the chief executive of RBS and the £5.8 million paid out by Lloyds? Will our constituents not recognise that the Conservative party is saying absolutely nothing about the level of those payments to individuals, and that it is defending them?

Christopher Leslie: Government Members will have to confront this issue, because it is a decision they will to have to take. Those traders and executives were former colleagues of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was one of the senior bankers at Deutsche bank. Perhaps he can tell us whether, when he was a banker before the election, his bonus was more or less than 100% of his salary. Perhaps he can fill us in with that bit of history.
	In our motion, we have made the point about instructing United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd and making sure that it acts accordingly and turns down this proposal if bonuses come to more than 100% of salaries. That is not fair. Most of the people watching this debate will think, “Well, it would be nice to get any bonus at all. The same amount as my pay? Crikey, that would be phenomenal, but twice the amount of pay is totally unacceptable.” The Chancellor and the Minister will have to confront the anger of the public on this issue if they fail this test.

Guy Opperman: The motion mentions the requirement for greater competition. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the dozens of challenger banks that have sprung up under this Government since 2010—

Ian Lucas: Nonsense!

Guy Opperman: I can definitely assure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely correct and that many are coming forward. Does the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) regret voting in April 2012 against greater competition in the banking sector?

Christopher Leslie: I am not quite sure what planet the hon. Gentleman is living on, but we have been consistently tabling amendments to financial services legislation to encourage more competition and to have an inquiry into retail banking competition. At every stage, the Government have refused to go down that route.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the respected Nobel prize winner Professor Joseph Stiglitz said in his book, “The Price of Inequality” that one of the ways forward is to
	“curb the bonuses that encourage excessive risk-taking and short-sighted behaviour.”
	The hon. Gentleman will see that we are back on that trajectory. We are heading for another crash and another period of excess in banking, as the monopolists’ rent-seeking behaviour continues in the City.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This morning the Chancellor gave his rationale for disagreeing with the European banker bonus cap. It is a
	shame that he did not take a lead in trying to construct something of his own to rein in this culture. After all, we would have had a repeat of the banker bonus tax. The Chancellor’s argument is, “Oh well, this is just going to move it all on to pay and on to ordinary salaries.” Surely one of the lessons of the banking crisis is that the excessive, short-termist risk and reward bonus culture was driving dysfunctional behaviour that got us into the mess in the first place. Frankly, I am sure those bankers will try to find all sorts of little dodges and weaves to get around the rules, but we have to make the system more transparent and we need to move towards an remuneration arrangement that is much more about sustainability, stability, professionalism and serving the customers. It would be foolish for the Government to try to sue Brussels on this point and hold out against public opinion, which has had enough of this excessive behaviour.

Emily Thornberry: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help the House. Have the Government ever given any indication on what they believe the upper limit should be on bankers’ pay?

Christopher Leslie: I do not think they have, although I think before the general election the Prime Minister indicated that he did not want any taxpayer-owned banks to pay out bonuses of more than £2,000. We know what happened to that proposal.
	The issue goes beyond anger about bank bonus season. Serious reforms to the banking culture and the role of banking in the economy are still required. Ministers still have not grasped the role that banks ought to be playing to repair our economy. They are still out of touch on the causes of three years of economic stagnation and the reforms to the banking sector that are still needed. How much more evidence do they need? Despite the billions of pounds needed to ensure that the cash machines kept working; despite the mis-selling and ripping off consumers; despite the money laundering and sanctions busting; despite banks peddling interest rate swaps to struggling small firms; despite multi-billion losses in the disastrous London Whale scandal—London Whale was the name given to a trader—and fines of more than £1 billion for Deutsche bank in the United States for mis-selling mortgage-backed securities; and despite the rigging of LIBOR and other benchmark indices, including investigations into attempts by up to 15 banks to manipulate a £5 trillion dollar a day foreign exchange market; despite all that the Government still do not have the stomach to do what it takes to clamp down on misconduct and to finish the job.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend mentions the LIBOR scandal and the mis-selling of products. May I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for his work as chair of the all-party group on interest rate swap mis-selling?
	On bonuses and reward, does my hon. Friend believe that perhaps what we should say to high earners is that there will be no more bonuses until they have sorted out the mess the Financial Conduct Authority is currently investigating, and until all the individuals and companies have had their cases considered fully and have been compensated for the mess the bankers made?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point, which is that most of our constituents would say that bonuses are supposed to be for good or excellent performance and not just part of the run-of-the-mill, ordinary pay they receive regardless of whether they do well, make losses or get involved in all sorts of problems and difficulties. That is part of the problem with the culture in the banking sector, with which, frankly, the legislation introduced by the Government has so far just not dealt with.

Jesse Norman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could update the House later on what cap on bonuses was set by the previous Prime Minister, or the one before that. Does he not accept that the past few years, as he has just demonstrated with his recitation of scandals, was a period of the most lax supervision? It was under the previous Government that the Bank of England allowed these dreadful evils to take place. That is why it has made such a difference introducing the new senior persons regime, the new authorised persons regime and all the other changes, as well as the new definition of competition in legislation.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman and I differ in our analysis of what happened—I will explain why in a moment—and that says a lot about where we need to take policy. I do not believe that we have finished the job of banking reform, which seems to be the impression we are getting from the Government Front Bench. He and I might agree that more is needed—I will talk a bit about that in a moment—but stopping short of those reforms will not prevent another bank failure or protect the interests of normal customers and society so that they, not the high remuneration of those senior bankers, come first.

Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend share my incredulity that the Conservative party, which in opposition accused the then Government of over-regulation, should now suggest it was previously in favour of more regulation?

Christopher Leslie: There is a touch of revisionism from Government Members, but perhaps that is a bit generous; their attempt to rewrite history is breathtaking. I have no doubt that when the Minister speaks my hon. Friends will hear a complacent desire just to move on from banking reform and a desperation to make party political points about the history of the banking crisis. They will try, with all their might, to pretend that it was Labour’s spending on schools and hospitals that caused a global recession in dozens of countries worldwide, but my hon. Friends will not hear from him about how the banks must still be made to pay for their egregious and scandalous abuses and over-leveraged trades in sub-prime mortgage securities.
	All sense that the banks must be held accountable for the state we are in has been airbrushed from the Government’s narrative, because they want to blame their political opponents rather than upset their corporate friends. Perhaps the Minister likes to turn a blind eye, in the knowledge that it really was the banks that were responsible for the global financial crisis, or perhaps he has now genuinely convinced himself that it was primarily the fault of Governments and that the banks were only a little bit to blame. Either way, they have the wrong
	analysis, which explains why they have the wrong policies. By failing to tackle the root causes of recent economic devastation and the deficit that built up as a result, they are maintaining the risk that banks could once again turn to the taxpayer to bail them out, should they fail again. Never again must the taxpayer pick up the losses for the reckless behaviour of banks, and never again must our economy and public services be thrown into such turmoil because of the negligence and monumental greed of banking executives and traders.

Jim Cunningham: I apologise for arriving late, Mr Speaker. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that in the last Parliament the Conservative party, in opposition, only ever complained about red tape. Did he notice that for the first time today the Prime Minister talked about the recession not being the fault of the Labour party?

Christopher Leslie: This is why this Government’s narrative is beginning to crumble around the edges. Most people realise that the banking sector was totally dysfunctional and causing great difficulties. Of course we need better policing throughout the international community and by the regulators, but if we are to rehabilitate the banking sector, we cannot shy away from the tough decisions needed to change its structures and behaviour. There are still too many areas in which the Government have left banking reform unfinished.

Chris Williamson: Returning to the point about complacency, did my hon. Friend see the briefing note from the British Bankers Association prior to this debate? It says that
	“no other industry is subject to such influential pay supervision”.
	I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Does he agree that this “influential pay supervision” is patently failing in its job?

Christopher Leslie: We have to feel sorry for senior bankers facing a bonus of merely the same amount as their basic take-home pay, as 200% bonuses are obviously vital for their survival—for the record, this is sarcasm. It is complete nonsense, of course.

Michael Connarty: I have been listening intently to my hon. Friend’s delineation of the big ticket items where the banks have failed and where the Government appear not to criticise them, but on a more localised issue, Scottish constituents of mine have consistently been rack-rented and ruined by RBS, as the Tomlinson report said, yet these bankers complain in the local press in Scotland that their £4 million-worth of bonuses is less than the £6 million that HSBC bankers get—and these are people who consistently destroyed companies in Scotland. I hope the Minister will address the question of their faults and how they have acted since the crash.

Christopher Leslie: Of course, we want to see rewards, bonuses and pay that reflect performance. That is my hon. Friend’s basic point. It is not asking for too much.
	In too many areas, reform has been left unfinished. Four times the Government have rejected our proposals for bankers to face an independent licensing regime with an annual validation process for competence; they
	have delayed a decision on leveraging that could prevent excessive risk taking; and they have continued to resist a sector-wide back-stop power for the full separation of retail and investment banking, should the ring-fencing not work. Moreover, there is insufficient scope for proper scrutiny before the further sale of Treasury assets, and we know that the Government sold both Northern Rock and the first tranche of Lloyds shares at a loss. Despite month after month of persistently falling lending to small and medium-sized enterprises—a fall of £12 billion in the past year alone—the Government have had to throw out Project Merlin, ditch credit easing and reboot their funding for lending programme, but still to little effect. It is obvious that we need a serious British investment bank, supported by a network of regional banks and capitalised with revenues from the market value of 3G spectrum licences, yet here we are, in the fourth year of this Government, and their half-hearted attempt at a business bank is still not fully up and running.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Members are listening to the hon. Gentleman with astonishment. What exactly did the previous Labour Administration do in 13 years to regulate the sector that he is talking about?

Christopher Leslie: The previous Government introduced a bankers bonus tax, which raised billions of pounds that helped improve our public services. Government Members need to wake up and realise that they need to repeat that strategy.
	While we are on the subject of bank taxation and the levy, let us look at what the Government have done, because it has been such a colossal disappointment so far. The Prime Minister promised that his bank levy would raise £2.5 billion each year, but they have never been bothered about making the banks pay their fair share, because their hearts are not in it, so the bank levy has fallen short of that target year after year. It raised only £1.6 billion in 2011, and despite their subsequent promises, it then again raised only £1.6 billion in 2012, and they are expecting a further shortfall this and next financial year—the Minister could confirm this. In the past three years, the bank levy has raised £2.1 billion less than they promised. With £2 billion, we could kick-start the construction of 80,000 houses or employ more than 20,000 nurses—the same number the NHS is short of. It represents a serious and scandalous shortfall in tax collection.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I would like to make some progress.
	Perhaps the most serious area of reform left untouched by the Government is the continued dominance of the big five banks, which gives customers limited choice and helps feed disillusionment and low trust. The Government have an action plan to deliver competition in the banking sector, but we cannot see it. We need more competition and banks that are hungry to serve the interests of consumers, businesses and the British economy, and a wholehearted shift in the number of market participants serving households and businesses, not a half-hearted tinkering around the edges.

Therese Coffey: It has been widely trailed today that a future Labour Government, if elected, would try to force banks to sell off branches. That will cause great concern, particularly in rural areas, because it is their branches that would be mostly likely to be disposed of. How would his proposals help create competition for our high street businesses?

Christopher Leslie: This is not about shutting branches; it is about making a more competitive sector. Time after time, we have tabled amendments to financial services Bills calling for more competition in the banking sector. The Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, called for action to diversify the banking sector, but the Treasury’s approach to divestments of branches from NatWest and Lloyds was not exactly a raging success. It would have been better if the Government had taken our advice and gone for a competition review of the retail sector and not just the business banking sector. They often say “We are looking at competition”, but it is usually only in business banking. They need a more comprehensive approach; the customer needs better service and competition to bring down fees and charges.
	There is still no obligation on banks to provide a basic bank account for all customers, even though we know it helps people on low incomes to save money and plan their budgets. The jury is out whether on the seven-day current account switching service will be enough or whether steps should be taken towards full portability of bank accounts for customers. The Government could introduce a fiduciary duty of care, explicitly putting the best interests of customers first and foremost in the financial services sector.
	Today, banks are an essential utility; they are supposed to be there to help customers, not to hinder the economy or act like untouchable vested interests. We need to clean up the behaviour of the banks and end the culture of excessive risk and reward. Those are the traits of the old economy; the new economy that we need demands a more modern banking sector—more competitive and diverse, accountable to its customers, supporting long-term investment at home and delivering the sustained growth that we need. That will be the task of the next Labour Government.

Sajid Javid: I thought that Labour Members had turned over a new leaf this year: they admitted that they got it wrong on immigration and they admitted that they got it wrong on education, so I hoped that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) would follow suit and admit that they also got it wrong on banking. I hoped he would admit that it was Labour’s changes to banking regulation that led to the world’s largest banking bail-out—changes that meant that when the alarm bells were ringing, no one was listening. The Bank of England was completely powerless to act. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would also admit that City bonuses rocketed under Labour’s 13 years in office, while Labour Cabinet Ministers were telling the world that they were
	“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”
	and they were handing out gongs to the likes of Fred Goodwin. City bonuses were surging to all-time highs, rising year after year, more than tripling over five years and peaking in 2008 at over £12 billion. Instead, this is a new year and the same old Labour.

Michael Connarty: rose—

Sajid Javid: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; I might be about to hear an apology, so I will listen carefully.

Michael Connarty: I think anyone who reads the transcript deserves an apology from the Minister, who forgot to mention that the relaxation of banking controls started with Mrs Thatcher and the Conservative Government. He forgot to tell people on the record that when people like me on the Opposition Benches were urging constraint—I am an economist—the Minister’s right hon. and hon. Friends were calling for fewer controls and a lighter touch with the banks, as was the SNP in Scotland.

Sajid Javid: I think the hon. Gentleman has a challenged memory of events. I am sad to see that he had an opportunity to apologise, but did not take it.
	Let us look at the facts. At the time of the changes Labour was making to the financial sector, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) warned the then Government in November 1997:
	“The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”—[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 732.]
	Let me share another quote, in this case from the current shadow Chancellor from a speech he made as City Minister in 2006:
	“Nothing should be done to put at risk a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime.”
	What we are hearing from Labour is the same old headline-chasing nonsense that we have come to expect and no answers at all to the problems they created.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East on one thing: public confidence in the banking system and in bankers is still low, just as—let us be honest—public confidence in the political system and the people in this Chamber is still low. That is precisely because, five years ago, partly as a result of the irresponsible decision of some bankers, but largely as a result of the policies of the then Labour Government, our country found itself in a huge mess. When trust is lost on that scale, it is not won back overnight.

Steve Brine: Perhaps the Minister can answer this question because the shadow Minister did not give way to me. The shadow Minister said that restricting the number of branches that banks can hold will not close branches, but of course it will. What does he think closing branches will do to people’s faith and belief in the banking sector. I have three branches of Barclays in my constituency—in Chandlers Ford, Alresford and Winchester—so if, God forbid, a Labour Government were ever elected, which one would they propose to close?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend highlights the fact that the Labour party has no ideas about how to increase competition in the banking sector, and any kind of approach that includes arbitrary quotas will clearly lead to the sort of problems that my hon. Friend outlines.

Harriett Baldwin: It is reported today that the Opposition are proposing specific market shares on specific banks. Has that ever been tried in any other country?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right. It is reported that, this Friday, the Leader of the Opposition will make a speech on the economy and attempt to set out an economic policy. I am afraid that his last such speech did not go very well. From what we know about this proposal—very little at this stage—I am not aware of any country in the developed world that has a similar approach, with the possible exception of the former Soviet Union, which adopted a similar approach to its banking sector.

Lyn Brown: I am glad we are discussing history, because I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s own history as a banker. I wonder what his remuneration and bonuses were back in those days. Given his history and the fact that he should be saying sorry—I presume—will he tell us whether he believes that bankers deserve a bonus in excess of 100% of their salary. Does he think so and does the Chancellor think so?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady seems to suggest that it is best to have Ministers who have no experience or knowledge in the areas for which they are responsible. We saw that under the previous Government, and look what happened. To win back the confidence of the British people, we need a long-term economic plan for recovery.

Christopher Leslie: I would not want the Minister unintentionally to miss answering the important question that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asked. For the record, do the Government believe that the senior bankers at the Royal Bank of Scotland should or should not be allowed to pay bonuses of over 100% of pay?

Sajid Javid: I will come to that later in my speech when I will deal with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	Bringing back confidence to the economy will of course mean dealing with the banking sector to make it more stable, more resilient and more efficient. That is exactly what this Government have been doing for the last three years.

Angus MacNeil: Does the Minister agree that, as with the debate on the bedroom tax before Christmas, this debate is really one about the symptoms of inequality in our society. Since the 1970s, we have seen 80% of the gains in productivity going to the top 1%—an inequality level roughly equivalent to that of the 1920s. Governments all over Europe and in the United States are not getting to grips with inequality and the hampering of life chances that it is causing. What does the Minister think should happen? The bankers should not receive the bonuses they are getting and people should not have their life chances halted by the bedroom tax. Are this Government going to do anything serious on this issue?

Mr Speaker: I assume that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to make a speech in the debate, on the grounds that he has already done so.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that inequality surged under the previous Government and has come down under this Government. In fact, the rich pay a higher proportion of tax than they have ever paid, with the top 1% of earners paying almost 30% of income tax for the first time and the top 5% paying almost half of the total income tax take. The Government are proud of making sure that the rich make a fair contribution to public finances.

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful case, but may I remind him of the central fact of the past 15 years? The banks had the same level of leverage for 40 years, until 2007, after which it went up by two and a half times. It was that explosion of leverage, under Labour, that destroyed the banking system both in this country and internationally.

Sajid Javid: As always, my hon. Friend is spot on. Because of the changes that Labour made in the regulatory system, no one knew what was going on, and if they did, they were absolutely powerless to act, especially those in the Bank of England. That is the legacy of the last Government.
	Let me now say something that the Labour party seems to be scared of saying. We need well-run successful banks in this country. We need the services that they provide. We need the loans that they give to small businesses, and the mortgages that they offer to home owners. We need the jobs that they produce—more than 450,000 throughout this country, and more than two thirds of those are outside London. We, as a Government, also need the huge taxes that the financial sector and its employees pay—some £60 billion last year—so that we can run our schools and hospitals.

Eilidh Whiteford: Small businesses have been among the biggest victims of the financial crisis, because banks have stopped lending to them. I share some of the Minister’s scepticism about the advantages of shutting bank branches, which may indeed only harm banking and access to financial services in rural areas, but I nevertheless think that the Government could be doing a great deal more to ensure that the banks lend more to small businesses on fairer terms. What will the Minister do about that?

Sajid Javid: I agree with the hon. Lady that businesses rely on the banks for the lending that they need. The action that we have already taken through, for example, the funding for lending scheme has ensured that the banking sector has had more money at lower rates to on-lend to small businesses and, indeed, households. We also recently announced a consultation on collecting small and medium-sized enterprises credit lending data, which will help to spur further competition in that sector.

Ian Lucas: The Minister is endorsing a noble cause in recommending support for small business and for manufacturing in particular, but given that manufacturing accounts for 10% of the economy, why does only 2.6% of bank debt stock result from lending to it? Why does the Minister not do something about that?

Sajid Javid: Part of the answer might be that manufacturing was decimated under the last Government. Its share of the economy fell from about 17% to the
	10% to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and, of course, lending fell with it. If the hon. Gentleman were honest and recognised the damage that his party did to the manufacturing sector, perhaps what he says would be taken more seriously.
	We need a more stable, resilient, efficient banking sector, and it is on that requirement that we have focused our reforms. As Members will know, back in June 2010 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the establishment of an Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, to explore how the sector should be reformed in the wake of the financial crisis. Last year the House passed the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which has enabled us to implement the commission’s recommendations. The changes will mean that banks must ring-fence the deposits of individuals and small businesses, so that everyday banking can be separated from volatile investment banking.
	As all Members, and, indeed. all members of the public will know, the financial crisis saw taxpayers bailing out the banks that got into trouble, but we have taken steps to ensure that that will not be repeated. Our banking reform Act introduces a bail-in tool, as a result of which shareholders and creditors, not taxpayers, will be first in line to bear the costs of future bank failures.

Chris Williamson: I think that the Minister should admit that the Government have watered down the Vickers commission. Will he now come clean with the House, and tell us that that is what they have done?

Sajid Javid: That is exactly what we have not done. We have accepted the central recommendations of the Vickers commission.
	We have not just been working to prevent a repeat of the crisis. Many Members on both sides of the House have been rightly appalled by the revelations of poor behaviour on the part of some in the industry, such as payment protection insurance, interest rate swap mis-selling, and LIBOR manipulation. Those practices were going on right under the noses of Labour Treasury Ministers, including the current shadow Chancellor, who did nothing at all to stop it.

Guy Opperman: My hon. Friend attended the local banking conference that I organised shortly before Christmas. Does he agree that “challenger banks” such as Aldermore, Virgin, Metro, and even the Bank of Salford—which is run by Labour and Unite, and is excellent—are a key element in the greater competition that we need in order to reinvent the banking market in this country?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend’s intervention gives me an opportunity to commend him for his initiative to promote regional banks. He is absolutely right in his assessment.
	We also set up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). As a result of the commission’s work, we amended the banking reform Act in order to implement its recommendations on holding bankers to account more effectively for poor behaviour. If a bank were in future to enter resolution because of reckless mismanagement, senior bankers could face a prison term of up to seven years.

Chi Onwurah: The Minister has spoken in strong terms about the experience of the financial services. Does he accept that the unique way in which bonuses drive short-term risk taking led to the scandals that we witnessed, and, indeed, to the financial crisis? Does he really believe that the reward for short-term risk taking behaviour to meet bonus targets should be more than 100% of the reward that someone receives for doing his or her own job?

Sajid Javid: What I do accept is that badly structured and badly designed bonuses will lead to bad behaviour. I am sure that the hon. Lady herself accepts that if an arbitrary cap is imposed on bonuses and it leads to an increase in fixed pay but no overall fall in overall pay, the bad behaviour will actually worsen.
	We are putting our house in order. We are learning from the huge mistakes of the last Government, and are ensuring that we create a country in which the public can trust that their money is secure and our banking sector can flourish.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is making great progress in the debate. Will he also mention the fact that taxpayers are now benefiting from the fines that have been levied on the industry, and that the Chancellor has extended the arrangement to ensure that military charities and others benefit?

Sajid Javid: I am glad that my hon. Friend has referred to that. It was the right thing to do, and it demonstrates that we can take some of the money that is coming from the banking sector and use it for good causes.

Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend mentioned the shadow Chancellor’s failure to tackle the abuses that were taking place in the banking system. Will he confirm that the shadow Chancellor encouraged the development of a less regulated environment, and that that contributed to the problems that we now face?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend has made an important point. I have already quoted what the shadow Chancellor said in 2006, when he was the City Minister, but those were not just his views; they were also the views of his boss, the then Prime Minister, the man who did more damage to our financial sector than any other. This is what the last Labour Prime Minister said in his 2007 Mansion House speech:
	“I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.”
	Shortly afterwards, he carried out the world’s largest banking bail-out.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the Minister share with the House his thoughts about which member of the last Government recommended that Fred Goodwin should receive a knighthood as an honour from the Government?

Sajid Javid: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I am not sure who it was, but I know that the knighthood was widely supported by members of the then Government, which shows what their priorities were.

Jesse Norman: Was it not the previous Prime Minister who said, “We will do for Great Britain what we have done for the City of London”, and is it not a disaster that he said and did that?

Sajid Javid: Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister is understandably making a case for the financial sector, as he also should for manufacturing and all other sectors. What my constituents fail to understand is why, when public and private sector employees over the last few years and now have accepted pay restraint and real-terms squeezes on their earnings, and we in this House, including Ministers, are facing public demands to accept pay restraint on our pay and conditions as well, top bankers are immune from those constraints.

Sajid Javid: I will come on to that topic shortly and share with the hon. Gentleman some numbers that show what has happened to the pay of top bankers.

Christopher Leslie: Do it now.

Sajid Javid: I will come on to it. The hon. Gentleman raised the two issues of banking competition and remuneration and I want to cover them.
	I was very pleased that the hon. Gentleman talked passionately about the importance of competition. It is a shame that the previous Government did absolutely nothing to encourage it for 13 years. It is worth reminding the Chamber that when the last Government took office there were at least 10 major UK banks, but over their 13 years of incompetence they continued to permit and manage banking takeovers which shrank the number of market players and left the big banks to dominate.
	Greater competition in banking is good for people and businesses and the economy. That is why we are implementing the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking for improving competition; indeed, we are going further. We are addressing the issue of too big to fail through ring-fencing, meaning that big banks will no longer get a competitive advantage from this implicit guarantee. We have put competition at the heart of financial services regulation by giving the Financial Conduct Authority a formal competition objective as well as making provision for a secondary competition objective for the Prudential Regulation Authority. We are also making sure that the FCA has the right tools to get the job done on competition by giving it concurrent competition powers.
	While competition dropped under Labour’s stewardship, it is increasing under ours. As we have heard, since the crisis Metro Bank, Virgin Money and the new TSB brand have entered the market. Indeed, RBS also announced recently that it has teamed up with investors, including the Church Commissioners, to launch a 300-branch challenger bank, Williams & Glyn’s, focused on small businesses.
	In fact our financial regulators are currently in talks with 22 potential new bank applicants because of the steps we have taken to promote banking competition. On top of that we are creating a new payment systems regulator so that smaller banks and others can access the payment systems fairly and more transparently, and
	we have secured a seven-day current account switching service to make sure that people have the confidence to change accounts. There are further innovations coming on cheque imaging and mobile payments. This is a Government who are bringing competition back to banking.
	On bankers’ pay, we understand the depth of public anger but we will not take any lectures from the Labour party. While bonuses continued to increase year after year on its watch, even after 2007, they are now down 85% from their peak in 2008. Since 2010 we have been leading the way on tackling unacceptable pay practices. First, we have introduced rules that require significant parts of bonuses to be deferred and paid in shares, which means there is now a much better alignment of pay with risk and performance. While we make sure that only good performance can be rewarded, we are also making sure that poor performance can be punished by introducing measures that mean firms have clawback policies to reduce or revoke pay retrospectively.
	Those steps are having an impact. The 2012 bonus pools at almost all major banks have declined massively since this Government came to office. The truth is that while Labour talks about clamping down, this Government get on with the job.

Emily Thornberry: If the public are watching this debate, they may well want to ask the question I shall ask now, and I hope we get an answer. Do the Government have a view on the maximum amount a banker should be given by way of either a salary or a bonus, and does the Minister agree with the bonuses currently being given out by Chase Manhattan bank?

Sajid Javid: First, I am not sure even whether the Opposition have a view on what the right level of bonuses is. Also, I am not sure about Chase Manhattan bank because it does not exist any more as far as I know.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will my hon. Friend explain to the House what the last Government said about bonus levels, if they said anything about them, and the gratitude with which they spent bankers’ tax receipts?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend again rightly points out that the previous Government did nothing when bonuses were reaching a record high. Even after they had carried out the world’s largest bank bail-out, pumping in over £40 billion of taxpayers’ money, they still allowed bonuses the next year to reach an all-time peak of almost £12 billion. That is their legacy.

Christopher Leslie: We now come to the point that the Minister has twice said he would address later on, so will he address it now? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be using his power as a shareholder in the Royal Bank of Scotland to allow its senior bankers to exceed the level of bonus beyond 100% of pay: yes or no?

Sajid Javid: That is exactly what I was coming on to next. It is important for taxpayers that any proposals by RBS are considered fully and properly. The Government have not yet received a proposal from RBS on bonuses; once we do, we shall be in a position to judge whether it represents value for taxpayers.
	The Government do not support the EU cap on bonuses. The Government have fought against it and we are currently challenging it in court. The bonus cap creates perverse incentives by removing the link to performance. It is damaging to financial stability; it is opposed by the PRA and the Bank of England; and, indeed, the cross-party Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards rejected crude bonus caps as unworkable.
	Let me turn finally to the bank levy.

Chris Williamson: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Minister give way?

Sajid Javid: No, I have given way enough and others want to speak.
	If we need an example of how little the Opposition understand the banking sector, we only have to look at their policies on the bank levy, a levy they turn to every time they want to fund a policy announcement. They seem to believe that the bank levy could raise enough money to pay for capital spending, a youth jobs guarantee, regional growth funding, housing, child care and community services. On top of that, they think they can cut the deficit with it, reverse VAT increases, reverse child benefit savings and reverse tax credit savings—in total over £30 billion of commitments. Only the economically illiterate would think that with £1 raised in tax, we could have £10 of spending power.
	It is no wonder that Labour gave us the deepest recession in 100 years, the largest post-war budget deficit and the world’s largest banking bail-out. In short, whereas their old banking policy was to stick their heads in the sand, their new banking policy is to stick their heads in the clouds, so frankly I do not think they are in a position to tell this Government what to do. Instead we shall work to continue to make this sector more stable, more resilient and more efficient, and we shall continue to help our banks to help our country get back to our best. I urge the House to reject this motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that obviously a great many Members wish to contribute and there is limited time available. I am therefore imposing a limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches. If a Member takes an intervention, the eight minutes is increased by one minute, of course, and I urge Members to take that into consideration when deciding how long to speak for; otherwise, I shall have to decide for them. I call Michael Connarty.

Michael Connarty: If I refuse to take interventions, it will not be because I do not think Members have a good contribution to make, but because I would like to limit the length of my speech. I recall often ending up with only four minutes to speak when the debate started off with an eight-minute limit.
	The Minister did not focus on the motion, but I always look at the motion on the Order Paper rather than bring my prejudices with me and try to fit them around the debate. The motion says that, so far, Government reforms
	“have failed to deliver a competitive banking system”.
	I want to focus on what has happened since the crash, and on the behaviour of the banks that my constituency businesses have had to deal with, and ask why that should influence our decisions on bonus levels.
	I welcome the EU regulation. I heard the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) on the radio this morning saying that the European Scrutiny Committee, on which I am the longest-serving Labour member, unanimously supported the position on an individual veto for the UK on a number of items. In fact, he misquoted us. If he had looked at the policies in the document on the scrutiny of EU business in this House, he would have seen that paragraph 2.80 states that we supported the idea of a red card for items in the EU. That would mean that a majority of the EU countries would have to agree to send back a policy, such as the 100% bonus limit, to the EU in order to reject it. That is not the same as the UK having the right to mount an individual challenge to such a policy.
	In the public’s mind, this debate focuses on whether the banks have changed their behaviour, whether they are better organised and are working better for our constituents, and whether the people who run them deserve to get larger amounts of money as a reward for what they have done in the interim. The reality is that RBS, the bank that took a £44.7 billion bail-out from the last Government, has again and again been awarded substantial bonuses for failing. It has not been performing well.
	The Tomlinson report found that RBS had been involved in what can best be seen as malpractice in its relationship with the business community. Small businesses have account managers at the bank who suggest that they should take money from the bank. They are told that they will be looked after by their account manager. They are not told that, in the background, a group of people known as debt recovery executives are looking at those same deals and asking themselves how they can make that company go bust and get its assets. They are also thinking about how they can revalue those assets downwards so that the company will be found not to be solvent enough to pay its debts.
	I have watched that happen to businesses in my constituency again and again. They were told that they were getting a good package and a good deal, only for someone to appear from another part of the bank to tell them that their assets had been revalued. Incidentally, the same valuers were used again and again by the bank to downgrade those companies’ asset values. The companies were then told that they were in trouble because they could not pay their debts, but that the bank would give them another loan, charged at an additional 10% interest over and above what had originally been agreed. I have watched company after company go to the wall on that basis.
	RBS is in print as saying that its bankers deserve a £6 million bonus, rather than the £4 million that they would be limited to under the EU rules. Those bankers
	say that they could get £6 million if they went to work for HSBC—well, good riddance to them, if that is how they are going to run the banking system. We are failing the same people that we failed under the last Government. I make no apologies for the last Government. They took certain choices, and I criticised them for it. When I was at university, the banking system was a solid, solvent organisation. I had a very right-wing professor, Andrew Bain, who said that banks should have a low leverage point of about 12.5 times the level of its reserves. That all went to pot under the last Government, and I do not see why anyone who criticised the Government for that should apologise.
	The pattern at RBS is being repeated at the Clydesdale bank. I have been with that bank since I was a student. Ballantine’s iron foundry had an order for £1 million of wrought iron work in this building. It had a full order book. Following an offer from an account manager, it transferred to the Clydesdale bank. The bank looked at the company’s £2 million of property assets and also judged its assets held in patents and rare mouldings to be worth £1 million. Further down the line, however, other people from the bank emerged to tell the company that its property had been revalued and was now worth only £500,000 and that its patents were worth nothing. The company had been in existence for 180 years, and its owner put £70,000 of his own personal cash into the company’s bank account to keep it moving and to prove to the bank that his business was viable in the long term. It was put into administration anyway, and it has now closed, with the loss of 70 jobs. I blame the Clydesdale bank for that.
	This is the problem that I have: the Tomlinson report talked about RBS, but the problem is constantly occurring. Banks have the ability to write down their own debt by making good businesses go to the wall and selling off their assets to bring in money. They write off a debt and bring in assets at the same time. That has been going on since this Government came to power. It happened under the last Government as well, but we are talking about what this Government are doing.
	Part of the motion that could hold out some hope for people is the proposal to
	“ensure that major new banking service providers are created”.
	The only way to achieve that is by splitting the big five banks. Their domestic banking businesses would need to form a whole new banking system, with the risk-takers and speculators going off into other banks. The idea of setting up little banks here and there will not work, although I must admit that I have taken advantage of the facility of moving all my accounts—including my MP’s office account—to the Trustee Savings bank, which has now been split off from Lloyds. The Airdrie Savings bank has also opened a new branch in the adjacent constituency of Falkirk, and a number of people are going to it because they want to be treated as customers. When they talk to their account manager, they do not want to feel that there is someone in the back room wondering, “How can I get money off this individual?” or “How can I trap this small business?”
	It is important for people to have new banks. We are not talking about bank closures, despite the myths about that. We need to create a major new banking system by splitting the banks, and we need to encourage people to diversify and to leave a bank if it is not treating them well. We also need to ensure that people
	who get bonuses receive only the maximum allowed by the EU, and I hope that the Government fail in their challenge to that proposal in the European Court of Justice.

Harriett Baldwin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). I, too, encourage many of my small businesses to look around and to act as customers. They do not have to stay with the bank they have been with since they were students.
	I could not believe the bare-faced cheek of the Opposition motion on the Order Paper when I read it this morning. I am sure you felt the same, too, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you will recall—in your very impartial way—the state of the banking sector when this Government came to power. It is worth recalling the mess that we had to deal with when we took over. We had had the first run on a bank in this country for well over 100 years; we had had the biggest banking failure in the world; and we had had a decision, taken under conditions of panic by the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, effectively to nationalise large parts of the banking system. The Opposition motion should acknowledge that that was a deliberate decision. The natural course of events under capitalism would have been for those banks to fail, for all their employees to lose their jobs and for the branches in all our constituencies to close, followed by a restructuring process taking place outside state ownership. Instead, we have effectively perverted the course of capitalism, and that was a deliberate choice.

Mark Garnier: Will my hon. Friend remind the House who the architect of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was? That Act set up the Financial Services Authority, the regulator that manifestly failed to regulate the banks properly, which allowed the collapse to happen. Will she also remind us who the City Minister was at the time of the banking collapse?

Harriett Baldwin: I think I am right in saying that the then City Minister is now the shadow Chancellor. My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that the regulatory architecture that allowed this disaster to occur was also set up by the previous Government. Having been regulated by that regulator for many years, I know how important it is that the regulation of banks has been returned to the Bank of England. That is important because the Bank of England sees the canary in the coal mine when banks have problems with day-to-day liquidity. The Bank of England was able to see such problems in the run-up to the crash, whereas the Financial Services Authority, in its lofty headquarters in Canary Wharf, was at one remove from that, and there was no ability to join up the reaction. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point.
	At the start of this Parliament, our Government inherited, in effect, a state-owned oligopoly in the banking system, and that is not a good place to be if we want to achieve a competitive and healthy banking system. The Government have embarked on a long-term economic plan to reform the banking system and make it more responsive to the needs of businesses and consumers up
	and down the land. That cannot be done overnight—it takes time. Step No. 1 was to reform the system of financial regulation. That was an extremely thorough and elaborate process, involving many people from within this House and the other place, and as of last year we had the final enactment and implementation. So we have taken some difficult and long-term decisions to reform the regulatory architecture in a way that will make it impossible for this sort of crisis to occur in the future.
	Secondly, we have established a long-term economic plan for people and for businesses in this country. We have reformed the way in which the economy is working: we have lowered the cost of mortgages for home owners; we have lowered the cost of government for council tax payers; and we have lowered the cost of fuel over and above what the Opposition planned, so that people who drive to work do not have to pay that extra £11 in tax that had been planned for them.
	Thirdly, I come to the final piece of this journey in passing on to future generations a banking sector that is, once again, fit for purpose: addressing this problem of the state-owned oligopoly. We cannot restructure the failed banks effectively within the Government’s ownership, and the best way to say that we have closed this terrible chapter that we inherited in the banking system will be by privatising the banks that are publicly owned and returning them to the private sector. We have started on that with the sale of the first tranche of Lloyds shares. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that it is the Government’s plan to return Lloyds shares to the private sector.
	I also argue that it is in the best interests of the economy and the country that we move now to return RBS, whose share price is still well below that paid by the former Prime Minister for its shares, to the private sector, even if that means recognising and crystallising a loss which is the price we pay for Labour’s banking failure. At the moment we are in the worst of all possible worlds: we have a system where we need to allow new entrants to come into the space, but a large semi-state-owned dinosaur is taking up a lot of market share. It would be better for that to be restructured effectively within the private sector.
	My argument today is that the Government need to get out of the banking business as quickly as possible. It is not the role of government to be setting the compensation of every banker in this country. The Government must set the framework and the regulation, but this level of micromanagement is a function—a symptom—of the terrible inheritance that we received. By getting out, we must recognise that we will reform the banking sector for our children and our grandchildren. It will mean that those banks will then restructure within the private sector, and the socialists will never be able to get their hands back on running a large sector of our economy.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to be called in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). I do not necessarily share her views or her assessment, but she made an illuminating contribution. Given today’s news about RBS, this is a pertinent and timely debate for the
	Opposition Front-Bench team to have called, and we must take the opportunity to debunk some myths that have been allowed to penetrate into the debate so far.
	First, we must point out the fact that the banking crisis was global. The Minister gave a history lecture, but perhaps conveniently the chapter he missed was the one on Lehman Brothers’ collapse in New York in September 2008, which triggered a tidal wave of chaos across most major western economies. I would argue that the action taken by the previous Labour Government was necessary; we all remember the queues outside Northern Rock and the chaos that was created, and default would have been a disaster, for not only the British economy, but for the wider global economy. Confidence would have completely collapsed in the banking sector and we would have seen a run on all major high street banks. The alternatives to Labour’s action would have been disastrous and it is not worth contemplating them. The action was costly to the public purse, but nobody—none of my constituents or those of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire—lost their savings. That is an important fact to remember, as it shows precisely why the banks that think it is back to business as usual just do not get it.
	It was not only this bonuses-as-usual mentality from the banks but some of the other structural weaknesses that remain within our banking system that allowed the LIBOR and Euribor rigging attempts for which RBS, Lloyds, Barclays and Deutsche bank were fined by the regulators, to take place. It is also the mis-selling of interest rate swaps and of payment protection insurance—

Mark Garnier: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: I will not give way because many hon. Members wish to contribute. Clearly, those structural weaknesses remain in the banking sector and the Government should be doing more to address them, both in the UK and globally. I would like the British Government to take a lead on addressing banking reform, not just in this country, but across Europe and across the globe.
	The banks also have a social obligation to taxpayers. I said that the Labour Government’s action was costly to the public purse and important to secure people’s savings, but I do not believe, unlike the hon. Lady, that we perverted the course of capitalism, because the alternatives would have been disastrous. However, banks should be doing more to help the Government meet their social needs and the wider social needs of society—those for whom it does not feel as if the recession is yet over. That is why the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) to have the bankers bonus tax to fund a compulsory jobs guarantee is absolutely right and why I think he gets it. It is also right that the bank levy should also be increased, specifically to fund the expansion of free child care for three-year-olds and four-year-olds from 15 hours a week to 25. The Government try to make out that this is the same pot of money. We are talking about two very different socially responsible measures that will ensure that the banks start to repay what they owe to society
	Finally, bank lending and access to bank services are important if the banks are to take on socially responsible roles in securing the recovery and helping local communities.
	Let me turn first to lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. I despair when companies come to see me as their Member of Parliament and set out perfectly viable business propositions to which, before the banking crisis, banks would have fallen over themselves to lend money, and yet they cannot even get a foot through the door. We must ensure that the Government’s attempts to get banks lending start to work, because it is just not happening at the moment. Indeed, the most recent data show a huge drop-off in bank lending to small businesses, which should cause some concern to the Treasury.
	There are still too many communities without good access to banking services, and branches continue to close. That is a huge problem not just in rural communities, but in some of the most deprived urban communities. It is very much a social justice issue. People should have good access to banking services within their community. Perhaps there is a greater role in that regard for the Post Office. One scheme under the previous Labour Government was to increase the number of free cashpoints in our most deprived communities. It was outrageous that people in some of the poorest areas were charged to get cash out of machines. The previous Government were absolutely right to install 600 free cashpoints in such communities. However, some of those measures have stalled under this Government, and there is a lot more that we should be doing to ensure that the most deprived communities have proper access not just to free cashpoints but to a full range of banking services.
	In conclusion, we need a vibrant and socially responsible banking sector, and ensure that bad practices are ended. The Government must recognise that banks have an important role in our communities, offering services and lending to businesses, and they must face greater competition. The Government and the banks must recognise that it is far from business as usual. It is time for proper banking reform.

Tobias Ellwood: It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I agree that this is a timely debate, but I repeat the concern that I expressed at the start of the debate that it clashes with a Treasury Committee hearing and that it is a shame that its members cannot be present. I plead with the Opposition Front-Bench team not to squeeze important debates such as this with other subjects. I could not get in to speak in the food banks debate, because there were too many of us. None the less, I am pleased that I am on my feet today, debating this important matter.
	Bournemouth East is renowned for being a wonderful seaside tourist resort. What is less well known is that it is also a thriving business community. Many financial services organisations choose to use this corner of Dorset to base not only significant operations, but their headquarters. They include the Nationwide building society, the Liverpool Victoria, Unisys UK, RIAS Insurance, Barclays and that giant US bank, JP Morgan. Whether such financial institutions are based in Bournemouth or London, they are a reminder of our success in attracting international firms to this country. Those firms could go anywhere in the world to do their business, but when they are based here they bring jobs, investment and prosperity.
	It is no fluke that so much of the financial services industry chooses to locate in the UK, making us the world’s leading centre of finance. The firms that invariably choose Britain in which to do their transactions cover a range of services, including insurance, accountancy, shipping, legal services, hedge funds, private equity, asset management or investment banking. Two hundred and fifty-one foreign banks are based in London. We are the leading global financial services centre, and the single most internationally focused financial marketplace in the world.
	I am saddened to hear some of the comments from Opposition Members, from which I hope the Front-Bench team will distance themselves. They did a disservice to the banking industry when they mocked those MPs who had been bankers.
	We have an unrivalled concentration of capital and capabilities as well as a regulatory system that is now effective, fair and indeed principled, which means that more overseas financial institutions and investors choose to do business in and with the UK than any other country. For example, there is a $1.9 trillion exchange turnover every single day in London. That is 37% of the global share. Around 600 foreign companies are listed on the London stock exchange, which is 18% of the global total. That shows why Britain is so important.
	We may think that these big organisations are separate from us, but let us pause to think of some of the financial moments that we might experience in our lives. I am talking about buying a home with a mortgage, seeking a loan to start our own business, or starting our retirement and drawing our pension. On each of those occasions, we look to a financial system that we can trust. I urge Members to be careful when they call for increased levies against banks or random caps on bonuses from the banking sector. We should also be careful about making fun of those who served in that sector, and who now serve in this place.
	Let me make it clear. People who work in all those banks and institutions in Bournemouth are not rolling in money; they are not millionaires. They are hard-working individuals who will not get the huge bonuses that have been spoken about in this place. In today’s global, technological, 24/7 economy, it is simple for a firm to relocate to another part of the world. That would mean losing UK jobs, taxes and, most importantly, influence over the regulations. It is important that we exert a modicum of control when we have this debate. We do not want the hysteria that we saw in the interventions at the beginning of this debate.
	None the less, I do not dismiss the seismic failure and irresponsible behaviour of part of the banking industry. Indeed, it is the failure of our banking system that has caused the biggest economic downturn in this country. We saw banks lend funds that they did not have to people who could not afford them and in ways that they did not understand. The banking system failed because it was not properly regulated. First, the Bank of England was stripped of its responsibility for keeping the banking system safe. Secondly, the Financial Services Authority was focused only on compliance and individual rules and so missed the bigger picture. Finally, there was failure at the Treasury, where the banking division was run down. As a result, the total debt reached five times the size of the entire economy; 10% of the entire wealth of this country was lost and hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and livelihoods.
	Labour tries to portray this situation as a global phenomenon—we have just heard that from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—and there is no doubt that there is a global context in which to place it, but it is no good blaming the US subprime market or Lehman Brothers. I note that in 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and all these events were happening, banking bonuses were £11.5 billion. To place that in context, the figure now is £1.5 billion. The alarm bells were ringing at the time, but nothing was done.
	Closer to home, away from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Northern Rock was handing out 120% mortgages. That was a British issue. The Royal Bank of Scotland and its reckless purchase of ABN Amro after the credit markets had already seized up was also a British issue. We cannot blame any other part of the world for that. It has taken a new Government to reform the regulatory system from top to bottom and restore Britain’s reputation as a competent, global financial centre.
	I know that other Members want to speak, so let me say in conclusion that the Government have acted to transform the banking industry through four key areas of reform. The first area is supervision. The Bank of England is back at the centre of the supervisory regime, with new powers to identify and address risks to ensure that banks do not threaten our economy in the future. The second area is structure, with new laws to separate the branch on the high street from the trading floor and therefore protect customers. The third area of reform deals with the cultural perspective by imposing higher standards of conduct on the banking industry and recognising the reckless misconduct that leads to bank failure. The final area is competition, which empowers customers and gives them the greatest choice. That should incentivise innovation and competition in the banking sector.
	Our country paid a high price for what went wrong with the banking system. It has taken a new Government to restore order, confidence and control in a sector that is so vital for the rest of the economy.

Ian Lucas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), although I am afraid that I shall disagree with a number of the things he said.
	The public want a banking system in the UK that works for them. At the moment, they do not have that. As I mentioned earlier, figures from the Investors Chronicle suggest that even now bank lending is massively biased towards the financial sector and against the manufacturing industry. About 20% of the economy in my constituency is based on manufacturing, as is about 10% of our national economy, but only 2.6% of the stock of bank debt is spent on manufacturing. It is absolutely clear that the banking system in this country does not address the need for the creation of a competitive dynamic economy, not just in the south-east and in the square mile that is the City of London, for which Ministers often seem to speak, but in the rest of the country.
	We need a banking sector that supports business and manufacturing across Britain. We have a Government who are committed to supporting a banking sector that represents only one part of the economy, the financial sector, and only one area of the country, the south-east
	of England. That goes back far beyond 2006—it goes back to the 1980s, when we had an economic sector that relied not just on banks but on organisations called building societies. Building societies were extremely dynamic funders of economic activity across the country and they were regional institutions.
	When I became a solicitor in 1986, the main lender of mortgages was the Halifax building society. It is gone; it has disappeared. The Leeds Permanent building society was a major source of lending that contributed to the construction sector. I come from the north-east of England, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth East mentioned Northern Rock. When I was born, the Northern Rock building society was where my relatives put money into an account. It was a building society to support people in the north-east in building homes for their children, and it was destroyed by the demutualisation of the 1980s and 1990s.
	The centralisation of the banking and building society economy happened as a consequence of the demutualisation and privatisations of the late 1980s. More and more financial power was concentrated in the City of London, away from local communities. Banking and building societies became completely divorced from the communities that they represented. As a consequence, we have the obscenity of bankers’ salaries being paid by such organisations. The chief executives of RBS, which has taken over the Halifax building society, and of the Lloyds Banking Group are paid £5.8 million a year with all the bonuses they receive. Those figures are from the end of 2010. Such salaries are out of step not only with the experience of the poorer people in our communities but with that of the middle classes. They are out of step with the people who become police officers or teachers for £20,000 a year, and with the local businesses that need investment.
	The little businesses that need investment cannot access finance because the people who run the financial system in this country know that they can get faster, quicker and easier returns in the short term from the financial sector. As long as that remains the case and we have a centralised banking system, that will lead to a non-competitive economic system. We must remember that our Chancellor told us in 2010 that that economic system would clear the deficit by 2015. He has changed his mind since then; he has failed according to his own terms. He has redefined the rules of the game.
	We need a complete change. We do not want to go back to 2006 or 2007; we need to go back to an economic system with devolved power and finance. We need a regional banking system based not on North Korea, but on Germany, where the Sparkassen system—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who is a banker, probably does not know anything about the Sparkassen system, because it supports manufacturing industry. If he learns anything from this debate, it should be that the important point is that banks under that system are geographically restricted, which means that they must invest in their local community. Germans choose to invest in Sparkassen—20% of people in each region invest in their Sparkassen, which then invests in its local economy to provide jobs for young people. It is not divorced from business and it creates work for young people.
	We must shift power away from those people in the City who pay themselves £5.8 million a year and back to local communities, which will then invest local money in local institutions. That was what the Northern Rock building society was like before Mrs Thatcher got her hands on it. Such organisations would invest in local communities, providing jobs in construction and houses for local people. It is as simple as that.
	Part of the problem with the banking industry is that far too many people in it are too clever by half. They think that because they understand what a derivative is, they can tell the whole of the rest of the world how to run the economy. We must go back to the principle that was successful during the industrial revolution, when local banks supported local investment. We must go back to building societies, which even the Business Secretary has said were an important driver of the economy in the 1930s. Unfortunately, we have a Government who are not creating extra competition in the banking sector. They are going back to where we were before the crash happened and, because of that, they are going to fail.

Brian Binley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on a thoughtful speech. At least it ranged wider than the speech of the shadow Chief Secretary, for whom I have great respect but who surprised me by concentrating quite so much on bonuses, when this whole matter is of much wider import, quite frankly. Indeed, bonuses are an infinitesimal part of our banks’ throughput and lending power, which is what I want to concentrate on. I welcome this debate and the thought that a successful banking sector is critical to our future policy.
	We can argue about the reasons for the financial crash—I am sure we shall do so for the next 10 years—but there is no doubt that it undermined the fundamentals of our economy. I praise the Government and welcome their attempt to rebalance our economy by strengthening the contribution of other sectors and of regions beyond the City of London. I believe that the Government are trying to do that, and the hon. Member for Wrexham spoke about it.
	It is easy to resort to banker bashing—I have done my fair share of it in the Chamber over the past three years—but we must not forget that banks play a fundamental role in our economy. We need to avoid the traps created by simple solutions and, indeed, sometimes by European interference. I am fearful of the transactions tax, which will harm the City enormously, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will fight hard to ensure that it does not hit us in the way that a number of people in Europe hope that it will.
	Banks are needed first and foremost to maintain the supply of credit to enable the economy to flourish. The financial crash restricted the supply of credit to the economy, in terms of mortgage approvals and business lending. I recognise the fact that, following the excessive use of collateralised debt obligations, banks needed to improve their balance sheets to lessen the risk of a further crash, but the consequence of the response to the crash has had an impact on the wider economy and our path to recovery.
	There are welcome signs that the general economy is recovering and that our macro-economic situation is improving. Business and consumer confidence is returning, which is critical. Growth is gaining momentum, and the labour market is improving. Mortgage lending has increased by more than a third during the past year. We have witnessed the fastest growth in demand for mortgages for more than six years, but bank lending to businesses is not so promising.
	Despite the general surge in lending, the finance available to businesses from banks has been disappointing. The funding for lending scheme has made only a marginal difference to lending to businesses. In November last year, we saw the biggest drop in business lending for more than two years—more than five times the average monthly drop. I accept that the fall is effected disproportionately by a fall in lending to large businesses, but it reveals a worrying approach to business lending, despite the general optimism in other parts of the economy.
	I therefore want to focus on one area for the remainder of my remarks. I recognise the importance of small businesses to the growth of jobs and to the well-being of our nation. Small businesses are crucial to our future prosperity, and the financing of those enterprises is a major issue that we need to get right. They employ more than 14 million people and generate more than £1,500 billion for our economy. Problems with access to finance are indicative of broader difficulties in the economy and have serious consequences, as I know from the businesses in my constituency.
	Some people argue that there is no problem with bank lending to small businesses and that the present issue is one of a lack of demand. Perhaps some small businesses are not seeking credit to invest and have constraints on their ambitions to grow. Perhaps a number of small businesses have generated cash surpluses that are available for investment, as confidence continues to grow stronger. The Treasury estimates that amount of money at more than £500 billion.
	The funding for lending scheme has, however, failed to meet the aspirations that we were promised it would instigate. I welcome the decision of the Governor of the Bank of England to make business lending the sole beneficiary of the scheme, rather than using it for all loans. Plainly, he feels that more needs to be done in this area, but the position seems fairly clear: funding for lending has made a difference for individuals, but not for small businesses. The Federation of Small Business has argued that many small businesses have been affected by a lack of access to financial support during the recovery and have relied on non-bank lenders to keep them afloat, and that simply is not good enough.
	I agree with the Government that business investment needs to increase. The Treasury estimates that a 10% increase in business investment in 2012 would have stimulated gross domestic product by a further £12 billion —almost one percentage point in 2012, when I was calling for more lending. Cash balances in the non-financial sector have grown by £104 billion above the pre-crisis level. Work is needed to translate improved business confidence into investment. Indeed, business investment is more than 25% below its pre-crisis peak. That is not a salutary figure, when we rely on small and medium-sized business to provide the growth and to generate the wealth that we need.
	Much needs to be done, especially when we recognise our poor productivity figures. One of the great issues over the next five years will be to increase productivity in our businesses. There is an environment of relatively stable prices and improving confidence, but we need to encourage business to invest for growth. Investment for growth means more jobs, high productivity and improved living standards, so small businesses must have priority. The banks have failed to give them that priority, and I call on the Government to do more to ensure that they get it.

Sammy Wilson: It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who has hit on a very important element of the debate: the role of banks in oiling the wheels of the economy to ensure that it is healthy and grows. Today’s debate is important, because despite the changes that the Government have made, the banks in the whole United Kingdom are clearly not fulfilling that function. Indeed, if anything, initiatives like funding for lending and the disappointment there, the return to the bonus culture and the inability of the banks to lend to small businesses all show that there is still a problem with the banking system.
	I want to deal with two aspects. First, the hon. Member for Northampton South said that he was disappointed with some of the comments about bonuses, and the Minister has tried to dismiss them by saying that they are only headline chasing nonsense. In an age of austerity, and given the political context in which we are debating the issue, this is not headline chasing nonsense and should not be lightly dismissed as such.
	The vast majority of people cannot understand why a Government who are pursuing rigorously—and, I believe, with some justification—a pay policy that restricts public sector pay are at the same time giving priority to challenging an EU ruling on bankers’ pay. I do not mind EU rulings being challenged; I can think of many other EU rulings that I would like the Government to challenge. But let us face it: we are talking about a public sector organisation, so the Government are in effect challenging their own pay policy for some of the most well-off people in society through the courts. This is not headline chasing nonsense, and it is difficult for the public to understand.

Tobias Ellwood: I will keep my intervention short; I am conscious of Madam Deputy Speaker’s guidance. The concern is that if we introduce the EU rules, many organisations will choose to leave the EU and base themselves in Singapore, Hong Kong and other parts of the world. Although the spirit of the proposal makes sense, the real consequences are that it could damage financial investment in the EU.

Sammy Wilson: I could believe the hon. Gentleman if there was some evidence of that. Ministers have boasted today that they have cut bonuses by 60%, or whatever it is, over the last few years, but we have not seen a flight of capital from the UK or a flight of banking business to Singapore or elsewhere. They cannot argue that they are restricting the ability of banks to pay bonuses while claiming that if we do that the banks will leave the country. There has been no evidence that banks cannot recruit or retain people or get the best people, despite
	the fact that the Government have said that they have restricted bonuses. The question is often asked: what is an appropriate level of bonus? We have not had an answer.
	We are talking about a state-run bank and we are not even considering senior executive posts. Cases cited today concern an individual with an increase on his basic salary of £1.7 million to £4.8 million, an increase of 133%. Is that enough? Another individual has a basic salary of £700,000, which after bonuses is £2.1 million, a 300% increase. Is that enough? Another individual has an increase from £775,000 to £3.3 million, an increase of 450%. Is that enough? The increases go right up to 600%. When do we stop? Surely the Government must have some view on this, but we have not heard it. That is why this debate on bonuses is important. We cannot have a state-run bank where bonuses of up to 600% are being given but the Government seem to have no view on it, whereas they do hold the view that public sector workers on £14,000 a year should not get a 1% increase. That is why it is important. It is not headline-chasing nonsense.
	The second issue that I want to deal with is competition, which is particularly pertinent to Northern Ireland. As we are sitting here today, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is considering the banking structure in Northern Ireland where we have a particular problem because 67% of the market is served by banks such as Ulster bank, which is part of RBS, the Bank of Ireland and the First Trust bank, both of which had to be bailed out by the Irish Government. All those banks find that their lending ability is hugely impaired by the bad loans and the bad decisions that were made during the property boom in Northern Ireland, and now they are trying to consolidate their balance sheets. Lack of competition is one reason why from 2010 until now lending to businesses in Northern Ireland has fallen by 12.5%. During the last year, it fell by 5%, even at a time of growth when one would expect businesses to need to obtain further finance.
	The Tomlinson report did not really cover Northern Ireland, but the excesses that it identified are to be found to an even greater degree there. Constituents regularly come to me about property loans and the first question I ask is whether they stopped paying the loans, but they were servicing their loans and paying the interest, and in some instances they were even paying down the capital, but their bank deliberately changed the rules and withdrew the facility, sometimes on a technicality, and sometimes on a technicality contrived by the banks. The loans were called in, and when the properties could not be sold, Ulster bank rode to the rescue and offered to put them on the West Register and buy them at a deflated price, even though there was an income stream and, had it waited long enough, the property market would have picked up some of the difference. The result is that many viable businesses have been sent to the wall by the actions of the banks seeking to repair their balance sheet at the expense of the real economy. The businesses then had to put people out of work because they were declared bankrupt. That is why there is a need to restructure the banking system.
	If there is a need to restructure the banking system in Great Britain, there is an even greater need for competition in Northern Ireland. I look forward to hearing what the
	Minister and the Opposition spokesman have to say about what can be done in such cases, whether it is the kind of localism referred to by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) or the introduction of a big new player that is not contaminated by the property loans of the past, splitting up some of the existing banks to ensure that that will happen. If we continue with the present banking structure, we will not find a way out of the current recession. That is why the need for increased competition referred to in the motion is as important as the need to restrict bonuses.

Ian Swales: I naturally share many of the concerns expressed today, but a common theme seems to be emerging from these Opposition day debates about business and financial issues, whether they be on energy, gambling or banking. The Labour party makes a mess of things in government, realises there is a problem when it is in opposition and then proposes the wrong solutions, although they help it with its headline writing.
	Let us look at some of the issues, the first of which is competition. I checked this morning and right now 55 different companies are offering current accounts; there are even 11 different types of account. It is now so competitive that many banks are paying people to have current accounts. Therefore there is a real question as to how restricted the competition is. A quarter of people already do not bank with the big four, and TSB has just been demerged to form a new high street bank. But high street banks are only part of the story. It is not in the motion, but we see from the press that the Labour party will try to force banks to demerge their branches. In fact, a lot of banking is not done that way at all. I have not had a bricks and mortar branch, for business or personal reasons, since 1989, when I took out the First Direct telephone banking service. How would that proposal work anyway? A banking analyst speaking to the BBC today asked:
	“What makes anybody believe that there’s a queue of people willing to buy these branches? New and smaller banks—they don’t want more branches, they want more apps.”
	There is an important point that we need to recognise about technology, which leads to the concerns expressed by some Members about what will happen to rural banking systems. Clearly, not everybody has access to apps and the internet. I assure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) that the scheme for cash machines in deprived areas is still in operation, as I know from my constituency.
	We know that everything in the banking sector is far from rosy. Many hon. Members have spoken about business lending, and I am particularly concerned about the manufacturing industry, which is important in my area. The banks are lurching from one scandal to the next: payment protection insurance, LIBOR, foreign exchange fixing and interest rate swaps. A business in my constituency, Python Properties, specialises in refurbishing iconic commercial buildings, which it has done in South Bank, also in my constituency. It now has tenants waiting for the next floor of a building that it has been refurbishing, but it does not have the cash to do the work, because HSBC is still holding out on paying it compensation for an interest rate swap. I hope Ministers will urge the banks to get on and pay out money for those swap arrangements.
	The Government have done good work in tightening up on tax avoidance—it is still far too high, but was rife before this Government took office—to the point where HSBC and Barclays have now effectively disbanded their tax avoidance advice teams. We are seeing some progress, but there is a lot more to do. The culture of the banking industry is still not what it ought to be.
	The Government have been taking action, of course, partly through frustration, by setting up new banks. The Business Secretary says that he is the first person to set up new state banks since Victorian times, as the green investment bank and the business bank are now operational, but let us not forget the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, the Financial Services Act 2012 and, as I have mentioned, the agreement on tax avoidance. There is also now a permanent bank levy, as well as inquiries into LIBOR and the banking inquiry itself.
	Bonuses are now more directly linked to performance in what are, after all, commercial businesses. I know that the Business Secretary is taking steps on executive pay, for example by giving shareholders binding votes on a company’s pay policy. The Government cannot run away from their responsibilities for RBS or Lloyds, as many Members have said, because they are a major shareholder in those organisations. They have a role in the decision-making process under the new rules. As the Minister said, the Business Secretary is taking steps on executive pay, unlike his predecessor, the one who said that he was
	“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
	Under the previous Government, capital gains were taxed at 18%, but this Government have increased the rate to 28%. People were allowed to put up to £250,000 a year into pension schemes and still get full tax relief on it, but that figure has now been reduced to £40,000. The higher income tax rate was 40% for the whole period that the previous Government were in office except the last month, and it is 5% lower now. As Members have said, we should take no lessons from the previous Government on that.
	However, setting up a bank is still not as easy as it could be. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is no longer in his place, because I was very taken with his speech. As a north-east MP, I vividly remember what happened with Northern Rock, and not just the things he spoke about, but the loss of the Northern Rock Foundation, which put a lot of profit back into the local community. We need a greater emphasis on regional banking. It is not as easy as it should be to set up a regional bank. I hope that Ministers will talk to Dave, who runs Burnley Savings and Loans—known as the “Bank of Dave”—who I think would like to do more but feels constrained.

Lorely Burt: I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying about regional banks. In America there are thousands upon thousands of community banks. Would he like to see a development towards community banks, which are even more local than regional banks?

Ian Swales: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Not only should we see that trend here, but the Government should encourage it. To that end, I hope
	that Ministers will meet a consortium of people from the north-east who are busy trying to set up a north-east bank.
	Setting up banks needs to be made easier. The uncertainty that some of the Opposition’s proposals create for what are, after all, commercial organisations is extremely unhelpful. They are now talking about imposing market shares on commercial operations in the banking sector, making them get rid of parts of their operation and dictating how much they can pay their staff. That is a dangerous precedent, because ultimately we have to ensure that competition deals with those things. That is why I welcome the steps that the Government are taking.
	The Government have a permanent bank levy. I am surprised that the Opposition want to reduce bank bonuses further, because taxing bank bonuses seems to be the main source of finance for most of what they want to do. It reminds me of a story I used to read to my children, “The Magic Porridge Pot”—it never stops producing porridge.
	Today the shadow Chief Minister could not bring himself to apologise for what happened under the previous Government. We have had apologies from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and the former Prime Minister. History has taught us that we should never allow the Labour party to be in charge of the economy again and that we should continue with the further steps that are needed to improve our banking sector.

Bill Esterson: Like other hon. Members, I want to speak about some of my constituents’ experiences with the banks, particularly in relation to small business lending. The banks’ behaviour changed overnight when the global financial crisis hit, as a number of businesses in my constituency have made clear to me. They had been repaying loans for years and had never missed a payment, but suddenly the banks called in the loans—the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made this same point—and many good businesses went to the wall as a result. That is something I experienced, although our business did not fail, but only because we were able to bail ourselves out by using personal savings.
	The problem today is that the banks are still not lending to small businesses. Most of the 4.7 million small business—those with fewer than 10 members of staff—that I meet are unable to borrow money from the banks. They will not lend to them, whether they are the high-tech growth businesses trying to develop the products we need to develop our export industry or the mainstays of our communities—the service firms that support local communities up and down the country. The banks are not lending, whether the companies have a good track record or a good business plan. It seems that the only firms that the banks are lending to—and even here we are seeing some problems—are the larger ones, the medium-sized companies that have significant assets against which they can borrow. I am afraid that the cost of living crisis, which is hitting many ordinary people in this country, is also hitting those who own or run small firms. It is just as bad for small businesses as it is for everybody else. The banks have a crucial role in turning that cost of living crisis around.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) mentioned the German system and how he would like to introduce something similar here, and I agree. Having met representatives of the Sparkassen, I must say that they have a lot to teach us. They know their customers, are based in the regions where they lend, understand the local economy and can lend only in that area. We could also learn something about bonus culture from the Germany system, because its regional banks’ remuneration is linked to the financial success of the economic area in which they lend. It is not something that we could introduce here directly, but we could certainly learn something about having a bonus culture that is manageable, proportionate, fair and based on success, and the right kind of success, rather than how much the banks lend. The banks in Germany are set up to produce jobs and growth and the banking system is designed to support small businesses.
	One of the interesting things I learnt from the Sparkassen is that rather than us having to become better Germans, we should look at who created the German regional banking system—it was this county, after the second world war. We based it on the old stable and steady lending criteria that we used to have in the old regional banks. We developed the system in Germany using this country’s experience and expertise. It is something that I am afraid we moved away from after the big bang of the late ’80s.
	We can learn from Germany, but there are good examples in this country too, such as the Merseyside Special Investment Fund. It provides equity and loan finance to small businesses in Merseyside, and it has been one of the few sources of such support to businesses since the financial crisis. Some of its customers switched to it having been turned down for loans by their banks. People who were unable to borrow from the banks have succeeded with MSIF. Indeed, local bank staff across Merseyside sometimes refer customers to MSIF because their own computer says no, so even they understand the problem. It is important to distinguish between banking executives and those who get large bonuses and the ordinary bank staff who do a great job up and down the country, day in, day out, in serving their customers in the retail sector—personal and business customers.
	We can learn a lot from MSIF about how to lend. It does not just lend money but gives advice and management support. It understands the local economy and aims to support jobs and growth. It is not a bank, but it performs many of the functions of banks and is filling the gaps left by the banks. It shows what can be done in this country in just the way that the Sparkassen do in Germany. Those are two examples that we can learn from in supporting small businesses. Our proposal for regional banks has much in common with the German model and with what is going on in Merseyside.
	I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) about social responsibility. Within a few yards of my constituency office, we face the closure of one branch of a bank. He mentioned the role of post offices. I agree, too, that we should see post offices as another valuable element in our banking system, but unfortunately we also face a post office closure not far from my office. Perhaps
	Ministers in different Departments—those responsible for post offices and those responsible for banking matters—need to talk to each other, and of course to the banks as well.
	Labour Members have the right ideas about regional banks and about how we could ensure that there is the lending to small businesses that is needed. There must be a change in the banks’ approach if we are to see the recovery and the investment in business that will lead to the exports that this country desperately needs to move forward in the short term and the long term. The banking system is crucial in this. Our proposed measures show the way forward. I hope the Government will pay attention to them and take the action that is needed, and not just carry on as they have during the past three years.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who gave a very measured account of some of the challenges facing the banking sector.
	It is absolutely right that we in this House should be talking about small businesses and the challenges they face in trying to get credit and loans. I represent a borough that is almost exclusively dependent on small businesses from an economic point of view. Obviously we have Heathrow airport, but small businesses are the predominant employers. Banks today are perhaps more reluctant to lend to small businesses than they were 10 years ago. Small businesses that need to have loans approved are much more likely to feel confident in a less centralised structure. They are happier dealing with loan officers they have known for a long time and if they have good local relationships. That gives them a lot more confidence than some of the computerised and centralised forms of banking that we have seen. In Spelthorne, lots of small businesses use export finance. Because of the proximity of the airport, they are reliant on foreign trade to do their business. Credit lines are very important for those sorts of businesses.
	I suggest—perhaps this will find less agreement around the House—that the bankers’ job is very difficult, because policy makers are saying, “We want your bank to lend more money”, at a time when capital requirements are higher. It does not take a very sophisticated appreciation of finance—I was about to say that it does not take the brains of an archbishop, which is very relevant in a debate on finance—to realise that it is very difficult for a bank to extend its balance sheet while increasing its capital. If we look at it as a pantomime horse, the two ends of the horse are pulling in different directions in being asked to raise capital and to lend money at the same time. That is a difficult balancing act.
	I want to talk about the general condition of the sector as it has developed over the past 10 or 15 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) said, banks’ leverage ratios were remarkably stable from the end of the second world war and going into the 1950s, right up until 2000. It was only after the turn of the century that we saw the almost frenzied credit expansion that made us so vulnerable in the final denouement when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the crash happened. Labour Members have suggested that many causes of the financial crisis extend back to
	the 1980s, with big bang and all the rest of it. In terms of leverage ratios, though, the serious risk in the system developed relatively recently, for lots of different reasons. Labour Members would suggest that a culture of deregulation brought in by Margaret Thatcher was responsible for some of the recklessness in the system, whereas Government Members would suggest that it was due to some of the reforms in 1997, particularly with regard to the Bank of England’s supervisory role.
	At that time there was a great deal of complacency, on both sides of the House, about the sustainability of this model. As has been repeated many times, we were in an era when Cabinet Ministers were
	“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
	That sentiment was not exclusive to Labour Front Benchers. The political establishment were quite content to see vast bonuses and big salaries extended across the City of London, for the simple reason that the tax revenues coming into the Government from the City were extremely useful at that time. Even though we were running deficits when the country was growing, we were using a lot of those tax revenues for Government spending. There was a symbiosis in which we were all somehow complicit. I find it interesting that Labour Members suggest we cap bonuses, because they will remember that, during the times of plenty, it was taxes on bonuses that gave such vast sums to the Exchequer, which it used—more than used, because it had to borrow—to spend on public administration.
	It does not make any sense for people in the House of Commons to engage in banker-bashing when a lot of the prosperity in the constituencies we represent has been fuelled by this country’s success in financial services. If we look across the range of financial services in banking, insurance, actuaries and accounting, we will see that all those professional bodies were largely encouraged and developed on these islands. Britain has always been—certainly for 300 or 400 years—at the centre of innovation in the financial industry. We cannot simply turn our back on that or suggest that we should penalise and punish. That is not how we have developed or how we will get future prosperity.
	Although I absolutely share some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members during this very reasonable debate—it has been much less political than one might have anticipated—I must say, once again, that finance is something in which we are world beaters and we should not be ashamed of it. We should not be embarrassed about it; we should encourage it. Yes, we should have more regulation and a stable regulatory environment—which, I hasten to add, was not implemented over the past 15 years—but at the same time we must not forget that a lot of the prosperity and tax revenues that accrue to the Government derive from the continuing success of the City of London, as has been the case for many centuries.

Michael Meacher: This has been a timely debate and I say that advisedly, having listened to the complacent, provocative and characteristically tribalistic knockabout from the Financial Secretary, which seemed to me to be almost totally devoid of any new, serious content.
	The record of the banks over the past five years has been so riddled with abuse of power, criminal malfeasance, reckless speculation, pervasive mis-selling of financial products, facilitation of contrived tax avoidance on an industrial scale, the rigging of the LIBOR and Euribor interest rate benchmarks, a growing and dangerous development of a shadow banking system, and continued dalliance with the exotic financial derivatives which precipitated the worldwide crash of 2008-9 in the first place that, when combined with the fact that there has been very little fundamental reform so far, there must be a serious risk of another financial cataclysm in the foreseeable future.
	The central fact about banking power in Britain today is that 85% of the public’s money in the retail market is controlled by just five big banks, which can—and do—use that money without any accountability to the public interest. The total gross spending of the banking sector reached £7 trillion—five times GDP—in mid-2011. Although it has somewhat reduced today, it still exceeds total Government spending by a factor of almost 10:1. That means that this tiny banking clique commands more spending power to control the UK economy than the entire machinery of Government.
	How does it use that power? The most striking fact about the British economy over the past five years—we all know this—is that the banks’ lending to industry has largely been negative for most of that time, while at the same time the banks have continued with their indulgence in property, overseas speculation, tax avoidance and risky derivatives. In the light of that, it surely is the case that the power of this dominant clique of the top UK banks, which has been so badly misused against the public interest, has to be broken up.

Guy Opperman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher: I have no time to give way.
	By being too big to fail, the banks exacerbate moral hazard, because the knowledge of the explicit taxpayer guarantee encourages excessive risk taking and recklessness. They have failed in their pre-eminent duty to keep adequate funding flowing to UK business, and through their size and weight they choke off competition and new entrants to the market. Initially, that should be brought about by a clean break between retail and investment banking. The Vickers alternative of Chinese walls—separating the two functions within a single, still-integrated structure—is flawed owing to the fact that the City will in no time circumvent it through regulatory arbitrage.
	Beyond that initial break, I believe there are strong grounds for further disbandment, which several of my hon. Friends have mentioned, in order to pave the way for what Britain really needs at this time, which is regional banks such as the Sparkassen banks in the German Mittelstand and specialist banks concentrating on infrastructure development, the knowledge and information industries, investment for a low-carbon economy, small businesses and so on.
	The fact is that the finance sector is always the most dangerous component in a capitalist economy, particularly in the deregulated version imposed in the 1980s, and it is surely clear that nothing like enough has yet been
	done to give assurances to the economy and to taxpayers that we are now protected against the depredations of the finance sector.
	The truth is that the big banks knowingly gamed the system for so long in order to expand their balance sheets ever faster and with ever lower capital ratios, based on the bogus claim that their lending was then less risky. They even deliberately invented the colossal credit default swaps market as an asset class in order to enable the hedge funds to speculate against collateralised debt obligations, and they gained regulators and investors alike, using their vast lobbying power to create the relaxed regulatory environment which, of course, is at the root of all of this.
	That lobbying power—probably the most formidable in Britain—is still being used ferociously to chip away at any, or every, new proposed regulation at both domestic and EU levels. As a result, capital ratios are still too low; the proposal to raise them is wrongly being delayed until 2018-19 to fit in with Basel III; the use of offshoring and tax havens has hardly been reduced at all; lending to UK industry remains deplorably low; the shadow banking system has not been effectively tackled; and managerial oversight will not be enforced until the Tyrie commission proposal, which is a good one, to hold individual directors and executives to account by disqualification or a custodial sentence is implemented.
	My last point concerns the control of the money supply. The banks have, in effect, seized control of the money supply. They have become major generators of unsustainable asset bubbles, which is a source of great instability to the economy and of enormous cost to the taxpayer. They control 97% of domestic credit creation and have used their virtual monopoly over it to feed successive property booms and speculative foreign ventures while allocating—this is the key point—just 8% of the nation’s resources to UK productive investment in the form of manufacturing, communications and distribution.
	The case for bringing back control of the money supply to public hands—as was always the case in this country until the 1980s—is crucial, partly to prevent the skewed allocation of national funding excessively towards mortgaged property; partly to rebalance the economy from finance to manufacturing when our balance of payments on traded goods is currently running at a deficit of more than £100 billion every year, which is frankly unsustainable; and partly to channel a huge amount more of our resources into real, productive investment, without which Britain will never recover its global competitive position.
	The banks have massively let down this country and they continue to do so. The extensive restructuring of the financial sector is critical for the future of this country, and that requires far deeper reform than the present Government are trying to get away with.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to the House that every speaker has taken their full eight minutes or more. I therefore have to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to seven minutes.

Guy Opperman: Greater competition, the desire for local banks and the Labour policy to close regional voluntaries are the issues of this debate. I have held two local banking conferences over the past six months—one in Gateshead on 6 June and the other in London in December—and they were attended by in excess of 350 people from various organisations, banks, accountancy firms and start-ups. It was very striking that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has recounted, there was a tremendous desire for a large number of new banks, and that is in fact the reality.
	I have met the likes of Metro, Aldermore, Handelsbanken, obviously Virgin, Cambridge and Counties—it was set up out of a local authority pension fund—and the Hampshire bank. A fantastic bank has been put forward by the Unite union, on behalf of Labour, in Salford, and it is doing wonderful work. I have met Alex, who is the linchpin of that. He is a fantastic lad, who is doing great stuff to try to transform how that local community bank provides services to the local community of Salford.
	I therefore disagree with the doom and gloom approach about there being no competition or new entrants. Certainly, when I meet those from the Financial Services Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, including Sam Woods and all the individuals involved with the regulators, they tell me that they have had in excess of 25 separate pre-applications that they are now considering.
	On 23 April 2012, when we debated local banks and the need for greater competition—this is my seventh speech on local banking in the House in the past three and a half years—the Labour party chose to vote to delete clause 5 of the Financial Services Bill, which was designed to create greater ease for new entrants to enter the market and related to how far competition can encourage innovation. I welcome the fact that the Opposition seem to have changed their policy and would now like more competition, but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating, is it not?
	An announcement has been briefed to Nick Robinson of the BBC that the Labour party, if it gets into government, will ultimately close regional and local branches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) made clear when he questioned the shadow chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), that would have a massive impact on our local communities.
	I am certainly trying to have more bank branches opened in my area. I am negotiating with my credit union to see how far it can do that. Similarly, I am trying to create new banks in the north-east. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) has made clear, there is great scope for new entrants to do so. The very fact that the big five are so complacent and have had so many problems, gives new entrants an opportunity, which is certainly being exploited by all those we have spoken about today.
	In that context, I want briefly to touch on two matters—credit unions and the Church, neither of which have been discussed. It would be a failure of this debate if it did not deal with both of them. All of us should support our credit unions. I am certainly wholeheartedly
	behind the Northumberland credit union. We must acknowledge that even though this Government have done more to give credit unions greater clout, power and ability to lend, credit unions are still incapable of filling the banking void and overcoming the current difficulties.
	The only way forward is the creation of local community banks built on a credit union. I can give the House at least three examples. I have already mentioned the bank in Salford, which is the former Salford credit union. The Glasgow credit union is probably the biggest and most successful in the country: it is effectively a bank in all but name. Finally, I have the Prince Bishops community bank in Durham, which is the former Stanley credit union. All are very successful and have great potential. We need to follow such examples.
	To touch briefly on the Church, I welcome the fact that Justin Welby is the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It is savage irony that 500 years have had to pass for us to have the new type of God’s banker, who is encouraging the Church to become involved in banking. It can only be good if the clergy move from being reactive to poverty and social deprivation—to their great credit, they are amazingly good at reacting in that way—to being proactive.
	I suggest that the Church has a role, acting with their credit unions and local community banks, effectively to become the offshoots and outlets of those community banks. After all, all the vicars that we, as constituency MPs, know and deal with know which people are in great social deprivation, going to the food bank or having problems with high-cost credit and need debt advice. There is massive scope for the Church to take a greater role by dovetailing churches with credit unions and community banks. I welcome the fact that the Church has chosen to buy branches of Williams and Glyn’s bank, and is setting something up so that we can go forward. If we can do that and become more proactive in our local communities, a huge amount can be done.
	In seven days’ time, I will meet my Northumberland credit union in Hexham to discuss how we can promote the idea of taking the credit union, building it up and creating a larger bank to make the situation so much better. If we do that, we will have in our regions and communities a bank that we can trust, with a proper brand name and identity, and one that is part of the community, rather than something based in London or Frankfurt and completely divorced from that community. That is the problem that we all face and have identified and, to their great credit, that is the problem that the Government have made great efforts to address.
	In the interests of brevity, I will draw to a close, but I very much urge all parties to make sure that they get behind local community banks. We have not always done so, but we should do so in the future.

Alison McGovern: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) appears to be leaving his place, as I want briefly to say that I am worried about what he said. He seems not to have heard the message from the public that they are still dissatisfied with our banking industry. I do not think that our financial services industry should be about wealth accumulation; it is there as a supporting
	act to this country’s industry for wealth creation. I hope that he might consider his remarks in that light. I thank him for pausing to hear what I have said.
	I want to speak about two matters—first, about co-operation versus competition in regulation, and secondly, about rebalancing our economy. I thought that those would be cross-party matters, but having heard what some Government Members have said so far, I am no longer sure.
	On global co-operation in the regulation of financial services, we in this House must recognise that we are part of an international global marketplace. That has been pointed out by British citizens since Adam Smith sat on the promenade at Kirkcaldy and watched ships going in and out of the port. As a Merseyside Member of Parliament who sees very large ships coming in and out along our River Mersey, I am also acutely aware of that point.
	Fundamentally, in the face of a global international marketplace—financial services are undoubtedly such a marketplace—we have two choices. We can either work with our partners to regulate the industry, given the risk that it might pose to all our economies, or we can take part in a global race to the bottom and allow global corporations to play one Government off against another. The bank bonus cap introduced by the EU is a classic example of that dilemma.
	I argue that there are strong moral reasons to be internationalist, but there are clearly economic reasons too. This is a classic economic prisoner’s dilemma: we either work together and everybody benefits, or we work against others and in the end we work against our own interest. The G20 resolved in 2009 to introduce new global rules on supervision. Since then, the UK has acted unilaterally and has blocked global co-operation. If we do not co-operate, we are doomed to compete against our own interests in the long term.
	I do not think that the British people are supportive of a Chancellor who has rushed to defend bankers bonuses that can be several times the size of an annual salary. The high level of variability in remuneration is leading us into the kind of cycle that we were in before. I am worried that we are dooming ourselves to make the mistakes of the past. I therefore ask the Minister to say what intention the UK has to work with its partners across the world to realise the promises that were made in 2009.

David Mowat: I agree completely on the need for global co-operation, as do the Government. That is why the Basel agreements are being implemented in the UK, with everything that that involves. However, there is a distinction between global co-operation and European co-operation. Why does the hon. Lady think that we should not follow global rules on bankers bonuses, which the Government would be much happier to do if they existed, rather than European rules?

Alison McGovern: We seem to be hearing that argument more and more from the Tory party. I am sorry to hear it from the hon. Gentleman, who has previously spoken sensibly about working with our European partners. It is as if Europe is the great problem and that Britain can be part of a world that does not involve Europe. However,
	Europe is one of the world’s biggest trading blocs, along with the United States, so if we are not influencing Europe, where should we be influencing?
	The second question that Ministers need to answer is where is their plan for rebalancing the economy. Given the way in which they have acted in relation to the City, coupled with the way in which they have acted in relation to the housing market, I suspect that we are getting the same old story from the Tory party. I would happily have debated the points that were made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne about 1986 and the influence that that moment had on our economy. However, I ask the Minister what the Government’s plan is for the City. Do they just want to reflate it all over again? Are we back to Tory economics as usual—the so-called FIRE economy of finance, insurance and real estate—leaving us open to the same worries that we faced in the past? Let the City of London rip and never mind the risk to the rest of the country!
	The way to deal with the risks that we face is to consider proposals for proper regulation, such as establishing a full reserve power to split banks into retail and investment arms if necessary. We need to keep our eye on the ring fence, as was suggested by the Independent Commission on Banking. There should be a review of the ring fence to check that it is working and, if it is not, we should use the full reserve power for splitting the banks.
	We must also not take our eye off the issue of remuneration. The regulator needs more powers to reform the rules if it is necessary. The British public are not comfortable with bank bonuses running away at two times people’s annual salaries. I would invite any Member of the House to talk to my constituents about how they feel about the incomes that are earned by people in the City of London. They do not feel that it is in the best interests of this country to have such a concentration of high earners. That creates risks for which they pay the price. The cuts that we have seen to local authorities have hurt communities up and down this country, but they were brought about by the actions of a very few people in the City of London.
	If Ministers do not take rebalancing seriously, people in this country, and certainly those in Wirral and Merseyside, will not forgive them. If they are serious about rebalancing, I simply ask them to say what steps they will take to regulate the City properly. Will they explain to this House—I am not sure that they will, but I would like them to do so—how they think an ever-expanding City of London that imports ever more risk into this country is helpful to the ordinary businesses and companies that I represent in the Wirral?

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) suggested that there was a pattern to these debates. The pattern I am increasingly seeing is rather like the schoolchild saying to the teacher, “I didn’t do my homework today because he didn’t do his homework yesterday.” The answer to virtually everything in the Financial Secretary’s opening speech seemed to be, “If Labour didn’t do it in 13 years, that lets us off the hook.” Regardless of whether his accusations about what the Labour Government did or did not do are
	accurate, for the Government to say, “Well, we don’t have to bother” is not the answer. There were other aspects of the Minister’s opening speech that I really have to pick up on for the record.
	The Minister gave the impression that under the previous Labour Government income inequality mushroomed as never before. By saying something confidently enough, he hopes that nobody will ever question it, but what actually did happen? Using the Gini coefficient, the recognised measure, there was indeed an increase in inequality from 37 to 40 from 1997 to 2009. I am not happy about that—I would have preferred the Labour Government to have done more to close the inequality gap—but the real mushrooming of income inequality was from 1979 to 1997, when it sprang up from 26—a low number, which means there was less inequality—to 37. The Labour Government did not turn it around, despite several measures to help those at the lower income level—for example, addressing pensioner poverty, which most people recognise was done—but it is simply not correct to convey the impression that our record on inequality was particularly bad.
	I represent a constituency in a city where the financial services industry is particularly important. In the last census, the industry accounted for 11% of all employment in the city. Many of my constituents work at some level in the financial services industry. I was talking to a constituent recently about the bonus culture. In his field of work, bonuses historically formed a substantial part of earnings. They were expected and taken for granted. However, they were deemed to be increasingly unfair to groups of employees who did not have the opportunity to earn them. After much negotiation, the solution was to modernise pay by ending the award of bonuses. My constituent lost £7,000 a year in that process, which was nearly a quarter of his previous annual earnings.
	I am sure that everyone will have grasped that my constituent does not work in the financial services industry. He is not a banker; he is a joiner who works for the council’s building services department. A bonus that is paid every week or every year, with little or no reference to performance, was, it was argued in the negotiation process, a distortion of earnings. Why is that argument not applicable to the banking sector? My constituent claims that morale has been affected by the changes—turnover and sick leave have increased—but that made no difference to the view that was taken on the bonus culture.
	Does it matter to a country if there are vast differences in income and inequality? I think it does matter. This is not simply the politics of envy. We risk increasing social disconnect in our society. People feel that nothing changes. As politicians, we spend a lot of time being angsting about why people engage less with politics and why, when we go to their doors, they say to us, “You’re all the same. Nothing ever changes. My life never changes. It’s not worth my while voting. Everything will just be the same. The rich will still be rich and I’ll still be the same as I am.” We worry about how we can do something about that.
	I submit that one reason for that is that people see great unfairness and great inequality, and they would like something done about it. If we do not make some changes, we risk seeing the gap between average voters—or
	non-voters, as they are more likely to be—and the elite running the country get even bigger. Average voters feel that the elite have nothing to do with them.
	There are other issues relating to banking. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) spoke about banking for the less well-off. Increasingly, and for all sorts of reasons, we would like those who are less well-off to be banked. For example, those paying for energy bills through PayPoint usually end up paying an extra charge on top of their bill, so that the poorest people without bank accounts pay the most. We want people to be banked so that they can get employment—it is often a prerequisite because money needs to be paid into a bank account—and so that they can receive their benefits payments.
	The previous Government took up the question of the unbanked, through the introduction of basic bank accounts and putting pressure on banks to do something about it. It was their intention to make it compulsory for banks to offer basic bank accounts, but the incoming coalition Government chose specifically not to go ahead with them, and now only one of the major banks offers basic banks accounts; all the others have stopped. This is important if people are to have the widest possible choice, and much as I support the credit unions in my area and much as I think they have a valuable role to play, they are in their present incarnation—and will remain so without a lot more investment—very far from being able to substitute for proper basic bank accounts and provide for the least well-off. Banks need to do something about that. It is another important aspect of what they should be doing for the country.

Cathy Jamieson: As many hon. Members have said, this has been an interesting debate. Surprisingly, some Members thought there had been a conspiracy to have this debate clash with the Treasury Select Committee, but that was perhaps a conspiracy theory too far, to coin a phrase.
	It being the new year and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act having been passed, I had hoped we might be able to move on. I thought we might have been in a position to debate where to go next, but unfortunately, despite it being the new year, we did not hear anything new from the Minister, just the same tired old Tory lines, which was disappointing. The Minister boasts of his experience in the banking sector, so I had hoped he might have been able to throw some light on the debate, rather than simply trying to bolster his reputation as the Tories’ attack dog, which seems to be his role at the moment. Also, he seems to have a new middle name, because his response to every second question was, “I will come to that shortly”, but I am not sure he ever did. However, I am sure that we will hear more answers from him in due course.
	We have heard some excellent contributions this afternoon from my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). We also heard interesting
	contributions from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who highlighted several issues about bonuses, and from the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who did not quite stick to the Government line all the way through when he raised issues to do with funding for lending.
	We had hoped to raise the tone and tenor of the debate and move on from the banking reform Bill. I think we would all agree that we need our banks to work for the whole economy—for individuals, small businesses and the large business sector—if we are to earn our way out of the cost of living crisis. As I highlighted when we were debating the banking reform Bill, the danger is assuming that the job is done and that no further reform is necessary. Now that that Bill has been passed, our concern, which was reflected by many of my hon. Friends, is that the banks will simply slide back into previous practices or wish to go back to business as usual. [Interruption.] I see some Government Members agreeing with this. That is why we have concerns about bonuses.
	As many hon. Members have said today, there is a question mark over how it can be justifiable, in a time of austerity, when everyone else is being asked to do their bit, for bankers to seek excessive bonuses of over 100% of their annual salaries. I know the Minister said that nothing has been put forward by RBS yet and that he would consider it when the time came—I suppose that will be “shortly”. Members of the public watching the debate and the media, hearing the news and looking at the newspapers want to see a signal that the Government believe, as the Opposition believe, that taking forward these excessive bonuses is not the correct approach.

Angus MacNeil: What does the hon. Lady think could be done with the money currently put in the bonus pot? What else could the banks do with that money if their bonuses were curbed? How else could they spend it; what could they do with it?

Cathy Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman will know that Labour’s policy, which I am sure he will support, is to use the bankers bonus tax to fund a youth jobs guarantee. That would benefit Scotland, too, which I am sure he would approve of.
	Our motion highlights the fact that we have not yet done enough to boost competition in the banking industry—by encouraging the challenger banks, for example. We have not looked at expanding the mutual sector either. Some hon. Members provided examples of new banks coming forward, but we should acknowledge that that has not yet challenged the main banking sector in the way that we would like.
	We should recognise that public trust in the sector is still at a low level. I remain concerned that, during the course of the banking Bill, the Government rejected both the fully independent licensing system for bankers and the idea, raised again in today’s debate, of imposing a duty of care to customers and all those working in the banking sector—a fiduciary duty. Opposition Members have consistently argued that those two policies would help to reform banking to make it work in the interests of customers and the economy rather than of the bankers themselves. Despite the changes in the banking Bill, the original Vickers recommendations have been rather watered down, particularly in respect of competition.
	A number of hon. Members discussed and provided examples of lower bank lending to business, with it falling far short of what we need to boost jobs and growth so that our economy can recover. It was mentioned that the Bank of England has reported a record £4.7 billion contraction in lending to business—the biggest drop in more than two years and nearly five times the recent average monthly decline of £1 billion. That follows the decreases in lending in the UK by 3% each year since the start of the financial crisis amidst the failure of the other schemes that the Government introduced such as Project Merlin and its business bank, which has not had the intended impact.
	Little wonder, then, that the Government belatedly heeded Labour’s call to refocus on the funding for lending scheme—a point made by the hon. Member for Northampton South—and introduced change in an attempt to improve the supply of credit both to big business and to SMEs. Time after time, however, we have heard that small businesses in every constituency have been unable to access credit because of the lack of availability of loans and that the terms on which credit was offered often made it more difficult for them to take it. Many report that they simply do not ask for credit, believing either that they will not get it or that the terms will be prohibitive.
	It was interesting to see a recent research report from the peer-to-business lending platform, rebuildingsociety.com, showing that SMEs have stated that more than 21% of SMEs continue to suffer those restrictions. That is why 1 million SMEs have seen the lending terms from their bank worsen over the past five years. It is all very well to say that the money is there, but the businesses are not applying for it and are not going to the banks to ask for it. The reality is that nearly half of those who responded in that particular survey have had their interest rate and their overdraft increase, while a third have had their lending facilities cut. More than one in 10 SMEs did not even approach their banks for a loan, because they believed that they would be unsuccessful.
	We fear that things are sliding back to “business as usual”. We are concerned about the whole question of bankers’ bonuses and bankers’ pay. I know that during Prime Minister’s Question Time today the Prime Minister suggested that he did not want the overall cost to increase, but that failed to take account of the public’s concern about the fact that individuals in the banking sector who are already highly paid are able to receive bonuses amounting to twice their annual salaries.
	Figures from the European Banking Authority, published at the end of 2013, reveal that the financial rewards handed to the City’s highest-paid bankers rose by a third last year, and that more than 2,000 bankers in the United Kingdom earned more than £1 million. That means that the UK contains 12 times as many high earners as any other country. Top bankers picked up bonuses averaging 3.7 times their basic salaries, a figure that has risen since 2011. The public want to know who is on their side rather than on the side of the bankers, so that they can be sure that that does not continue, which is why we initiated today’s debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) pointed out that Labour had led calls for the Competition and Markets Authority to be forced to
	begin, immediately, a full market study of competition in the retail and SME banking sectors, and I hope that the Government will take that on board.
	The public want to see a signal that the days of excessive bonuses are over, and they want to see it now. We do not believe that the present position is acceptable, but nothing that the Government have said today has sent that signal to the public. Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary is about to send it now.

David Gauke: This has been a thoughtful and interesting debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for Northampton South (Mr Binley), for Redcar (Ian Swales), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), all of whom made excellent and intelligent speeches. I am not sure that I would use quite the same words to describe the speech made by the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), but I hope that he will not take that personally. I have a lot of sympathy for him—after all, he spent a number of years making speeches in debates like this one, saying that we were going too far, too fast, and that a plan B was needed. We do not hear quite so much about that now.
	We have heard a fair amount about the cost of living in recent months, but Labour party spin doctors have been briefing the press that they are about to bring that campaign to an end, so where does Labour go now? How does it fill the vacuum that exists where an economic policy should be? The answer is, “With a bit of banker-bashing.” I could say, “Same old Labour”, but in reality the rhetoric that we have heard today and during the current Parliament is not consistent with what the last Labour Government did.
	When it comes to dealing with the risks and excesses of our financial system, Labour is in no position to criticise us. It is extraordinary that the people who crashed the car now wish to give us a lecture on road safety. They left us with a regulatory system that had failed catastrophically—a system that had failed to identify risks, or, when they were identified, failed to do anything about them—and, when the crisis came, it was not clear who was in charge. But who was the special adviser in the Treasury who was running the show when the tripartite regime was established? The shadow Chancellor. And who was the City Minister in the run-up to the crisis? Again, the shadow Chancellor.
	It was this Government who produced the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 and implemented the Vickers report, and this Government who established the Financial Policy Committee, involving the Bank of England once again and providing clear lines of responsibility. It is this Government who have ensured that we ring-fence deposits, separating them from volatile investment banking, and it is this Government who have introduced a bail-in power that protects taxpayers, to ensure that shareholders and creditors, not taxpayers, are first in line to pay for a bank failure. It was the last Government who presided over a system whereby individual bankers could not be held properly to account. Under our laws—laws passed by this Government—reckless
	management of a bank could result in seven years in prison. Under the last Government, it could result in a knighthood.

Bill Esterson: Don’t worry, I’m not after a knighthood. The Minister’s party colleague, the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), made it clear that the funding for lending scheme has failed and that lending to small businesses has fallen. The Minister’s comments have been notable in their failure to mention what he is going to do about funding for small businesses. Will he tell us now?

David Gauke: Gross lending is up, but one thing that will not help small businesses is if our interest rates rise prematurely because we do not have credibility. We have given this country economic credibility and that has helped to keep interest rates lower for longer.
	Our system ensures rigorous scrutiny before someone can have a serious position in a bank. Labour’s system could allow someone like Paul Flowers to become chairman of a bank. While fines went back into the banking system in the past, now they go to support military charities and others.

Brian Binley: May I make the point that I did argue that business lending from the funding for lending scheme was very low indeed, and that is why Mark Carney took the action he did and why I want to see the Government make more sense of lending to small businesses, because that is where growth and well-being are going to come from?

David Gauke: I agree with that, and we are focusing the funding for lending scheme on exactly that purpose.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?

David Gauke: No, I shall make some progress.
	We did not hear anything about the bankers’ bonus tax from Labour today—at least we do not see much about it in its motion—although it is customary on these occasions for Labour to identify yet another spending programme to be funded by it. [Interruption.] I wonder whether there was no mention of it today because the Opposition are embarrassed by previous occasions when they have claimed that more would be paid—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. This has been a quiet and dignified debate. Members who were not present during it have now come into the Chamber. I ask them to have the courtesy to listen to the Minister.

David Gauke: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the Opposition are embarrassed by previous occasions when they claimed more would be paid from a bankers’ bonus tax than was actually paid in bankers’ bonuses. Perhaps they have noticed that if they cap bonuses they will get less tax from them. They may want to revise their numbers on that.
	It has to be pointed out that it has been estimated that City bonuses in 2012-13 were more than 85% lower than at their peak in 2007-08. I know there is genuine concern about bank bonuses encouraging short-term high-risk behaviour, but it is not just the amount that matters; it is also the structure of the bonuses. There is a difference between cash bonuses and bonuses paid in shares with the opportunity for clawback if there is bad
	behaviour or a need to rebuild regulatory capital. Under the PRA remuneration code, large parts of bonuses must be deferred and paid in shares, aligning the interests of the employee with the long-term interests of the bank. The implication of many of today’s comments is that there is a concern about total remuneration, yet the motion and everything we have heard from the Labour Front Bench is about only one part of remuneration: bonuses. The reality is that the European directive and the policy pursued by Labour will drive up salaries. It is not clear why the Opposition are interested in only one aspect of remuneration, and we have certainly not had an explanation of that. It is also worth pointing out that the Governor of the Bank of England was critical of a cap in his evidence to the Treasury Committee this afternoon.
	I am pleased that Labour appears to support the virtues of competition, but that was not its record in government. There were 10 banks in 1997, but that figure reduced over the following 13 years. The Cruickshank report, produced in 2000, was supposed to encourage more competition, but it was blocked by the Treasury and nothing was done. Our record has involved a much greater focus on competition, and it is a primary objective of the Financial Conduct Authority and a secondary objective of the Prudential Regulation Authority. We have a payment systems regulator, which makes things easier for small businesses, and we have changed the application process to make it much more proportionate for new businesses. Furthermore, the regulators indicate that 22 new banks are interested in acquiring authorisation in the UK.
	On empowering consumers, our new switching policy saw a 54% increase in switching in December, compared with the year before. We have heard Labour’s proposals for a quota system. We do not have the details, of course, but simply reducing the number of branches of one bank will not create huge new levels of competition. There are concerns about branches being lost under Labour’s proposals. Most significantly of all, the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Select Committee this afternoon that that would not help with competition. One other person has been critical of that policy in the past. In April 2011, the shadow Chancellor said that
	“there is no need to break up institutions”.
	The last Labour Government’s record on the banking sector was lamentable. Their regulatory system failed, and their attempts to ensure that individuals were held to account also failed. They tried to ensure that bonuses did not create perverse incentives, but that failed. They tried to encourage more competition; that failed. They tried to protect taxpayers’ money, but that failed too. Their record is one of failure, and until they acknowledge that, there is no reason why the British people should take anything they say on this matter seriously again.
	Question put.
	The House divided:

Ayes 242, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.

National Minimum Wage

Eleanor Laing: I must advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Rachel Reeves: I beg to move,
	That this House celebrates the 15th anniversary of the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, which falls this year, and the contribution it has made to making work pay, boosting living standards and tackling in-work poverty; notes that, before the National Minimum Wage was established, poverty pay was widespread and that the Conservative Party and many Liberal Democrat hon. Members opposed its introduction; further notes that families are on average £1,600 worse off a year and that the National Minimum Wage is now worth less in real terms than in May 2010; further notes that the Government has not backed up its promise to name and shame firms not paying the minimum wage; calls on the Government to strengthen enforcement of the National Minimum Wage, including by increasing fines for non-payment of the National Minimum Wage and giving local authorities enforcement powers; and further calls on the Government to encourage employers to pay a living wage and take action to restore the value of the National Minimum Wage so that the UK can earn its way out of the cost of living crisis and to help control the cost of social security.
	For me, the proudest achievement of the previous Labour Government was the introduction of the national minimum wage. It was important because, as we know, the best way out of poverty is work and because taxpayers should not have to pick up the bill of subsidising bad employers. Making work pay is also vital to getting the social security budget under control and we will not allow the Government to let the national minimum wage wither on the vine.
	Fifteen years ago, on 1 April 1999, the national minimum wage took effect. We should and do celebrate the difference it has made to millions of people. We have also called this debate today, at a time of difficulty for so many low-paid workers and with low pay a growing problem across our country, to call on the Government to take action to strengthen the minimum wage, crack down on rogue employers and restore the value that the minimum wage has lost over the past three years. We call on them to do more to build a stronger economy that enables people to earn their way out of the cost of living crisis.

Karen Buck: Social care workers do one of the most important jobs in our society. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that in my borough, Westminster, and, I am sure, in others, social care workers are not even guaranteed the minimum wage as the travelling time between appointments is not counted for the purpose of payment?

Rachel Reeves: An investigation by the Low Pay Unit looked at pay rates before the national minimum wage was introduced and back then one worker in a residential care home was paid just £1.66 an hour. I agree that today, too, people working in that sector are too often exploited and that their employers get round the legislation.
	The Low Pay Unit considered pay before 1997 in a range of industries. I mentioned residential care but it also came up with other examples, such as a factory worker who was earning just £1.22 an hour in 1997 and
	a person working in a chip shop in Birmingham who was earning just 80p an hour. That is sheer exploitation. It is poverty pay and it was taxpayers who picked up the bill.
	Let us also remember what Government Members said back then. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said in 1997 that a minimum wage would
	“negatively affect, not hundreds of thousands but millions of people.”—[Official Report, 4 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 526.]
	The right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), now Foreign Secretary, said back then that a minimum wage would have to be
	“so low as to be utterly irrelevant”
	otherwise
	“it would price people out of work.”—[Official Report, 17 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 617.]
	The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), now the Minister of State responsible for business and enterprise, said that a minimum wage
	“will add costs to British business”.—[Official Report, 11 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 1240.]
	And the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now Prime Minister and then a parliamentary candidate in Stafford, darkly predicted in 1997 that a minimum wage would lead to a rise in unemployment.

Mark Tami: Conservative Members are very keen on calling for us to apologise for things. Does my hon. Friend think that it is time for them to apologise for such comments?

Rachel Reeves: It is not just the Tories who should apologise; the Government’s junior coalition partners should apologise, too, because they were worried back then as well about the impact of the minimum wage. In 1994, their then leader attacked Labour’s
	“umbilical attachment to a national, high-rate minimum wage”
	and said that
	“a national minimum would…force many on to the dole”.
	The Liberal Democrats went into the 1997 general election with a manifesto commitment not to a national minimum wage but to a
	“regionally variable, minimum hourly rate.”
	Let us be grateful that they did not get their way. Despite the then Opposition fighting the legislation tooth and nail, line by line, clause by clause, using every trick in the book to slow, frustrate and obstruct its progress, the national minimum wage became law.

Caroline Dinenage: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her fascinating history lesson. I wonder whether her bit of paper also says that 500,000 people lost their jobs under the previous Labour Government and whether she agrees that the announcement made this morning demonstrates the Government’s absolute commitment to ensuring that no employer will be able to exploit their employees by paying unfair wages.

Rachel Reeves: Two million jobs were created under the last Labour Government and employment reached a record high, so I am not sure where the hon. Lady gets her statistics from.
	I have quoted the former leader of the Liberal Democrats but, back then, where was the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable)? He was nowhere to be seen in the debates. He was nowhere to be seen on the voting record. On Second Reading and Third Reading, he failed to vote. Apparently, he abstained because he had reservations about a minimum wage. Perhaps he will stand up today to profess his concern for the plight of the low-paid. I am happy to take an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to make one.

Ian Mearns: Although the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills had reservations about the minimum wage, many of my neighbours who worked in the security industry on 90p or £1 an hour back then are eternally grateful for the Labour Government’s action in introducing the minimum wage. It made a massive difference to their lifestyle.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which reminds me of a story that my predecessor as MP for Leeds West told me. He saw a job advert in our constituency for a security guard back in the mid-1990s that said, “Pay, 90p an hour. Uniform provided. Bring your own dog.” Those were the sort of jobs that existed back then, but members of this Government opposed the national minimum wage legislation. I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has to say later, but people will be entitled to ask him where he was when we abolished the scandal of jobs paying less than £1 an hour and when British workers won the right to be paid a decent minimum wage.

Grahame Morris: Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s reservations about the minimum wage, what does my hon. Friend think about the reservations of ordinary working people about the Government’s plan to give 100% bonuses to bankers at the Royal Bank of Scotland? Will that be well received?

Rachel Reeves: Many people earning £6.31 an hour will be shocked and outraged to find out that bankers this year will get bonuses worth more than they earn, but they will be even more shocked to find out that they are the ones who are paying for those bonuses.

Alex Cunningham: I am suspicious about a tomato company that is expanding in my constituency. It appears to be replacing Stockton workers with people from overseas and paying them the minimum wage. I am told that those foreign workers are charged accommodation costs, so reducing the value of that wage. The company will not answer my letters. Does my hon. Friend understand my suspicions?

Rachel Reeves: I will come to that point shortly because the number of firms that are getting out of paying the minimum wage is incredibly worrying. We suggest increasing the fine to £50,000 for not paying the minimum wage, but there is no point in having such a fine if the legislation is not enforced.

Brian H Donohoe: Today’s Glasgow Herald reports that the fine will go up to £20,000 from where it is today. Surely, that is not nearly
	enough, given that hundreds of thousands of people are not even paid the very minimum wage of £6.31 an hour.

Rachel Reeves: At the Labour party conference, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called for the fine to be increased to £50,000, and I support that. It is also important that companies that get out of paying the minimum wage are prosecuted, and we are not seeing that under this Government.

Jim Sheridan: With regard to the advert about the security guard and the dog, I remind my hon. Friend that the RSPCA refused to allow the dog to work, yet the security guard had to do so.
	My hon. Friend is running through a list of the abstentions in the vote on the minimum wage. Please do not leave out the separatists in Scotland, who I think were washing their hair that night.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the voting record of other Members of Parliament on that night.
	Thanks to Labour Members of Parliament and a Labour Government, for the first time in history, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, British workers had a legal floor below which their hourly pay could not fall. Slowly but surely during the following years the rate rose. It was attacked every step of the way by many Government Members and, in 2003, when the Labour Government announced a 16% increase in the minimum wage over two years, the right hon. Member for Twickenham attacked the policy directly, saying that it would set a dangerous precedent.
	The result of the minimum wage was to boost the wages of nearly 2 million low- paid workers, two thirds of whom were women. It helped to lift 1 million children out of poverty and every authoritative economic study concluded that it brought no negative employment effects, despite the warnings of Government Members. No wonder that a survey of academic policy experts conducted by the Institute for Government judged the national minimum wage to be the greatest policy success of the past 30 years. It is now a policy supported by the CBI and the TUC, whose nominees work together on the Low Pay Commission. It is seen by the British people as a vital British institution, underpinning basic rights and decency in the way our economy works.

David Hanson: rose—

Susan Elan Jones: rose—

Rachel Reeves: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones).

Susan Elan Jones: When Members are a little shy, they should have a little encouragement from the rest of us. I worry that some Government Members are a little shy. They are not usually frightened of defending their party in government. Would they like to do so now, and will my hon. Friend allow them to do so?

Rachel Reeves: I have already made the offer to the Secretary of State, but we have not yet heard from him. All Members are welcome to make interventions, but in the meantime I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).

David Hanson: I confess that I was here when we voted for the minimum wage. I did vote for it, having stayed up most of the night, because I was kept up by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members who ensured that we did have to support that with our votes.
	Does my hon. Friend accept that the additional spending power given to many millions of people, including in my constituency, which was spent locally, helped to boost jobs in retail, on the high street and in locally produced goods?

Rachel Reeves: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in helping to put the national minimum wage on to the statute book. He is absolutely right to suggest that one of the contributions to the cost of living crisis that we see today is that the national minimum wage has not kept pace with the increase in prices during the last few years. The introduction of the minimum wage did indeed help to boost the spending power of workers.

Julian Smith: rose—

Brooks Newmark: rose—

Rachel Reeves: I am so shocked. We have two interventions from Government Members. I will happily give way to not one, but two Government Members.

Julian Smith: As a fellow Yorkshire Member, I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. Will she welcome this week’s announcement on inflation at 2%, and will she accept that this, as well as the Government’s phenomenal job creation results, are a key part of the package of getting people better paid in this country?

Rachel Reeves: For 41 of the 42 months that the Prime Minister has been in office, prices have risen at a faster rate than wages, and that continues to be the case. The only month that it was not the case was in April last year, when bank bonuses were deferred from March to April to take advantage of the cuts in the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p. [Interruption.] That is the only month in which prices grew at a slower rate than wages, not for ordinary workers, but the privileged few who the hon. Gentleman’s party always supports.

Brooks Newmark: Will the hon. Lady—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Chair has noted that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has departed immediately and too soon.

Brooks Newmark: I fear that the hon. Lady’s answer might have frightened my colleague away. I promise that I will not run away after she answers me. Will she at least acknowledge that this Government, by raising to £10,000 the level at which tax hits, thereby taking 2.7 million people out of taxation altogether, have indeed helped the low-paid?

Rachel Reeves: Work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that, taking account of all the changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits since the Government came into office, the average worker is now £850 worse off. The hon. Gentleman points to one thing, but the
	VAT increase means that people are worse off, as do the tax credit changes. Overall, when all those things are added up, people are worse off, not better off. I hope that he will stay a little longer than his colleague to hear a bit more of the debate.
	We know that we need to build on the success of the national minimum wage, because today we face a new challenge: getting our economy working for working people and tackling the worst excesses of insecurity and exploitation in our labour market.

Mel Stride: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), does the hon. Lady not accept that the pressure on living standards is a function not just of wages, but of the costs that average families face? Will she thank the Government, as I do, for having frozen council tax during the period we have been in office, unlike her party, which doubled it during its period in office?

Rachel Reeves: If the hon. Gentleman looks at what has happened to living standards, he will see that the average worker is £1,600 worse off than they were in 2010. I am surprised that he applauds what the Government are doing—I certainly do not—because workers in his constituency are worse off, not better off, after three and a half years of Conservative government.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members, after giving up attacking us on the minimum wage, have now moved on to more sinister things, such as workers’ right, zero-hours contracts and a vast increase in the number of people in part-time employment, to mask the fact that people are so much worse off than they ever have been? The outlook for those people now is something we never saw until the Government came to power.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The reality is that under this Government we have seen record numbers of workers on zero-hours contracts, record numbers of people who want to work full time having to work part time, and wages failing to keep up with prices. The average worker is now £1,600 a year worse off and the number of people being paid less than the living wage is up from 3.6 million in 2010 to more than 5 million today. The value of the minimum wage has fallen by 5% over the past three and a half years. For a full-time worker that means a real-terms pay cut of £13 a week.

David Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that Government Members are not supporting good employers? There are good employers in my constituency who are arguing very clearly that undercutting the minimum wage is affecting their business. They want good employers, not bad ones.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We saw similar things when Labour introduced the national minimum wage in the first place, because in many cases those who benefitted were the good employers who wanted to pay their workers a decent wage and who were being undercut by the cowboys.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the Opposition on bringing this matter before the House for consideration—we all have an interest in it. Does the hon. Lady share my concern about those in long-term apprenticeships who are not receiving the minimum wage? That has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions. They are glad to have the experience and a vocation at the end of it, but in my opinion they also deserve the minimum wage, which many of them do not receive.

Rachel Reeves: There is an apprentice rate for the minimum wage, which is important, but we need to ensure that more people are doing good-quality apprenticeships so that at the end of them they can get jobs not only at the minimum wage, but above it. My worry is that too many of the current apprenticeships do not offer the decent training that will enable people to get a good-quality job.

Steve Rotheram: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that while it was a brave Labour Government who brought in the national minimum wage, they were working in conjunction with the unions, which were pivotal to bringing in the policy? It will be the unions, working together with the Labour Government in 2015, that will introduce a living wage.

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Trade unions, including the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, of which he is a member, did a huge amount of campaigning for the introduction of the minimum wage and campaign today to ensure that more people are paid a living wage. I will say a little more about what we are willing do in government to ensure that more people are paid a living wage above the national minimum.

Jim Cunningham: The freeze in council tax, which was mentioned earlier, looks good on the surface, but councils are not being compensated for it, and they are stacking up a problem for two or three years down the road, when there will be massive cuts to services.

Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many councils, including mine in Leeds and his in Coventry, have been hard hit by the cuts to the local authority grant, which are affecting some of the services that the most vulnerable people rely on.

Guy Opperman: Can we get to the nuts and bolts of policy? Will the hon. Lady give the House an assurance that policies such as the petrol duty freeze and the council tax freeze—[Interruption] I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is chuntering so much that it is hard to hear him—would be continued under a Labour Government were they to be elected?

Rachel Reeves: I suggest that Government Members look at what we are debating: the national minimum wage. I know they do not want to talk about it, because they did not support it in the first place, but it would be
	nice if they could talk about its impact on their constituencies. However, I think we may have to wait for another occasion.
	We have a Government who opposed the national minimum wage when it was introduced and who are not enforcing the legislation properly today. Thanks to an investigation by the independent Centre for London, we know that as many as 300,000 workers are being paid less than the minimum wage. We have reports of workers having the costs of uniforms, accommodation, transport or training illegally deducted from their pay packets. We have shocking accounts of working conditions for some people in sectors such as elderly care which hurt not only employees but vulnerable people who need a reliable and good-quality service from people who are paid a decent wage. There are stories of legal loopholes being used to bring in migrant workers who are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, forced to work at exploitative rates of pay that also undercut and undermine the pay and conditions of all workers.
	Despite that, the number of enforcement cases opened or registered has fallen in every year of this Tory-led Government, and it is now at less than half the level it was in the last year of the Labour Government. Since this Government came into office, just two prosecutions have been brought for non-payment of the minimum wage. They have repeatedly said that they will name and shame firms that are flouting the legislation, but they have not named a single one.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does she agree that perhaps one of the reasons the national minimum wage has not been enforced is that Government Members are not 100% committed to it? For example, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has called for businesses with three employees or fewer to be exempt from the national minimum wage, as well as from regulations on maternity and paternity rights.

Rachel Reeves: Not only are Government Members not 100% behind the national minimum wage; they cannot even bring themselves to say “national minimum wage”.

Charlie Elphicke: The Government are asking the Low Pay Commission to review the minimum wage with a view to increasing it. Does the hon. Lady welcome that—yes or no?

Rachel Reeves: The hon. Gentleman is a little behind the curve. That is what the Low Pay Commission does: that is what we set it up to do.
	The failure to enforce the legislation properly has contributed to a worrying rise in in-work poverty. It used to be thought that if someone got a job, put in the hours and put in the effort, they would be paid enough to keep them and their family out of poverty and have a decent standard of living—that was the deal. But today, for the first time since records began, the majority of people in poverty are in work and the majority of children in poverty are brought up in working households. It is just not good enough that in today’s Britain an honest day’s work does not bring in a decent day’s pay.

Anne Begg: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the best way to make savings in the welfare bill would be to make sure that people are not just in work, but in well-paid work, so that they would not have to depend on welfare?

Rachel Reeves: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. If more people were paid a living wage, if the minimum wage were enforced and if more people who want to work full time were doing so rather than working part time, all those things would help bring down the rising costs of social security.
	A Britain where people who are putting in the effort and the hours still cannot make ends meet cannot be right and it is not fair. A Britain where parents who want to spend more time with their family and children but can hardly see them because they have to take on a second job is not right and it is not fair. A Britain where a young worker who wants to go to evening classes to improve their prospects but cannot because they have to take on an extra shift in the evening just to make ends meet is not right and it is not fair. A Britain where a woman cleaning the offices of well-paid executives before they arrive in the morning and who is still at work in the evening serving on the supermarket tills is not right and it is not fair.
	This is not just an injustice to those families. It is, as my hon. Friend has said, imposing cost on the rest of us as well, because lower pay means more money spent on tax credits and housing benefit. The bills of in-work poverty are rising faster than this Government can cut people’s entitlements. It also means less tax and national insurance going into the Government’s coffers. If we want to get the costs of social security under control and if we want to put our public finances on a sustainable footing, we need to get our economy working for working people, so that we can all earn our way out of the cost of living crisis that this Government have created.
	What solutions do Government Members have to offer? As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has indicated, the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) sponsored a Bill that would have enabled employees to agree with their employers that they should not be paid the minimum wage. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has said that people working for businesses with three employees or fewer should not have to be paid the minimum wage. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) has said that 16 to 21-year-olds should not have to be paid a minimum wage. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has said that disabled workers should not have to be paid the minimum wage. Shame on them and shame on the Conservative party. It is the same old story from the same old nasty Tories. Their only answer to our economic problems is to cut taxes for the richest and cut pay for the poorest.

Andy Sawford: The push to stop a minimum wage for 16 to 21-year-olds is appalling at a time when the Government have made life so difficult for that group of people in our society through their changes to the education maintenance allowance
	and the increase in tuition fees, which the Liberal Democrats, of course, promised would not happen. It is absolutely wrong and we must fight it.

Rachel Reeves: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. With almost 1 million young people out of work—250,000 of them for more than a year—hitting them further by saying that they should not be entitled to a minimum wage is doubly unfair, cruel and callous.

Gavin Shuker: Is not a further point that there are many threats to wages in rural communities in particular—where the cost of living is higher—not least as a result of this Government’s shameful decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which protected the pay of many low-paid people?

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for his work on these issues as a shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister.
	Labour Members know that a strengthened minimum wage and practical policies to promote the living wage are essential to building a recovery that works for working people and to securing rising standards of living for the future. That means stronger penalties and effective enforcement against rogue employers who flout the minimum wage. It means plans to restore the value of the minimum wage, which has been lost over the past three and a half years. It means the Government doing their bit to support the campaign for a living wage by setting an example with their own employees and contracts, as Labour councils are doing up and down this country, and it means the Government sharing the savings to the Treasury with employers who commit to paying the living wage, as we will do with our Make Work Pay contracts.
	The national minimum wage is one of Labour’s proudest achievements. It was opposed by the Tories every step of the way, while their coalition partners tried to water it down and frustrate its purpose, and the current Business Secretary sat on his hands. That is why we cannot trust the Tories or their Liberal Democrat supporters to protect the minimum wage, why we cannot trust the Tories to enforce or strengthen it, and why we cannot trust them to deal with the cost of living crisis.
	It therefore again falls to Labour to protect and strengthen the national minimum wage by increasing fines for those who exploit workers; investigating rogue employers and enforcing the law properly; restoring the value of the national minimum wage and catching up the lost ground of the past three years; and encouraging employers who can do so to go further and to pay the living wage.
	I suspect that when the Secretary of State gets to his feet, he will tell us how he now supports the minimum wage and wants it to be increased and to be enforced better. If that is his way of apologising for his past sins, so be it, but I must warn him and his Government that we will be watching. Working people who are struggling to earn a living and to survive the cost of living crisis need more than warm words and liberal promises; they need action, and only a Labour Government will deliver that.

Vincent Cable: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“notes that since 2010, the Government has increased the National Minimum Wage each year, despite the worst recession in living memory, to protect the income of the low paid and increase their wages relative to average earnings, and is cutting taxes for the low paid to boost take home pay by £705 a year, taking 2.7 million out of income tax altogether; welcomes increased employment under this Government, which is at its highest ever level; notes that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has asked the Low Pay Commission for an assessment of how it might achieve a higher National Minimum Wage in the future without damaging employment; further notes that the Government has maintained a central enforcement body that covers all areas of the UK and ensures a consistent approach and high quality service; and further notes that the Government is quadrupling fines for employers in breach of paying the National Minimum Wage and has already made it easier to name and shame employers who flout the rules.”.
	I am delighted to have the opportunity to move the Government amendment. Before I get down to the detailed substance of the motion, I want to say that this debate gives us the opportunity to discuss in more detail the regulations that, following my announcement before Christmas, I have laid today to increase penalties for non-compliance with the minimum wage by a factor of four. I also want to reinforce my earlier commitment that we will not merely do that but will proceed to introduce primary legislation to enable fines to be applied per worker, rather than per company, which will make them a great deal more forceful.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: I will take an intervention later.
	The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), misadvised one of her Back Benchers, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who quite rightly intervened, in relation to care workers, about there being no payment between jobs for social workers carrying out domiciliary care. That is actually an abuse of the minimum wage legislation. It has now been recognised as an abuse, and colleagues in the Department of Health, as well as my Department and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, are making efforts to ensure that the regulations are properly enforced.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: Let me carry on for a few minutes. The hon. Gentleman knows that I always take interventions. Let me just build an argument and then I will allow him to respond.
	Let me start with the very basics. It is a little difficult to do so in the face of the relentless tribalism that we have just heard, but I would say at the outset that the introduction of the national minimum wage was a real achievement of the previous Government. There were not many achievements, but two will stand the test of time: the establishment of the independent Bank of England and the establishment of the national minimum wage. [Interruption.] Indeed, there were others, but those were the two main ones in the economic field.
	Having said that, I attempted to be constructive about the motion, but one blindingly obvious point is that the centrepiece of the national minimum wage legislation—the establishment of a non-partisan, non-political Low Pay Commission—did not even merit a mention. The shadow Secretary of State referred to it only in response to an intervention. That is rather important, because it suggests one of two things. The first possibility is that Labour Members do not understand how their own system works. Indeed, I heard a Labour Member cry out earlier, “Why don’t you make it increase the minimum wage?”, so there are clearly people who do not understand the mechanism. The second possibility is that Labour Members do not respect the basis of the system, which is independent advice from a non-partisan body. That advice has been followed consistently by successive Secretaries of State, including my Labour predecessors. That is the strength of the system and that is why there is political consensus behind it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Vincent Cable: I will just deal with the politics of this matter before I take interventions.
	The hon. Member for Leeds West made a great deal of the fact that, as she put it, the Conservatives opposed the national minimum wage and many Liberal Democrats opposed it. She speaks with all the self-confidence of somebody who was not here at the time.

Chris Bryant: You were and you didn’t vote.

Vincent Cable: I did not particularly wish to raise this, but I am being asked personally to explain why I did not vote. It had a lot to do with the fact that my late wife was terminally ill at the time and I was in the Royal Marsden hospital. That is why my voting record at the time was poor on that and other issues.
	As it happens, my party supported the national minimum wage; nobody opposed it. I became the party’s spokesman shortly after the vote and I made it absolutely clear throughout that Parliament that we supported the principle of the national minimum wage. There was never any question about that.
	Perfectly legitimate issues were raised about why there was no regional variation. There is a proper debate to be had about whether there should be a regional or a national minimum wage. As it happens, I endorsed the principle of the national minimum wage. However, there is a perfectly respectable argument for regional variation. As I understand it, the Labour party now promotes the living wage, at the heart of which is the idea that there should be regional differentials, with people in London being paid more and people in the west country or the north of England being paid relatively less. There is an argument for that. Why criticise people who have put forward that idea in good faith?
	As for the Conservatives, although I do not always speak in their defence, I think that they should get credit for accepting that there is a good system that works and for deciding to support it. That is creditable. Although I and my party have supported the national minimum wage, there is a perfectly respectable intellectual and moral argument for not having a minimum wage. Countries that do not have a minimum wage include
	Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Austria. Those countries are all in the social democratic tradition, but have felt that it is too problematic. Germany, which has had either social democratic or national unity Governments for most of the post-war period, has adopted a national minimum wage only in the last few weeks. In those countries, where there are civilised values and a sense of solidarity, the costs and benefits of the minimum wage have been debated properly. Why should we criticise people in this country who wanted to have such a debate, but who have now come to a consensus that it is a good system and that we should make it work?

Seema Malhotra: Is the Secretary of State saying that Government Members and Conservative Members in particular support the national minimum wage for all businesses in all circumstances?

Vincent Cable: Yes, it is now the law. Of course we support enforcement of the law. I do not understand the question.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State tell us why he came to the conclusion that the fine should go from £5,000 to £20,000, rather than the £50,000 that would deter all those gangsters out there who are not paying the minimum wage?

Vincent Cable: The rise to £20,000 is a fourfold increase. However, the big difference is in applying that fine per worker rather than per company. That is a considerable escalation of the penalties. I hope that we will have the support of Opposition Members in voting that through.

John McDonnell: Is not the difference between this country and the countries cited by the right hon. Gentleman that they still have vibrant trade union rights and are not condemned annually by the International Labour Organisation, as this country is, for undermining trade union rights?

Vincent Cable: Those countries have had a variety of Governments, both left-wing and right-wing. I was simply making the point that it is possible to have a perfectly viable system without a national minimum wage. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in practice what is needed is either a strong system of trade union rights or a national minimum wage. We have now all accepted that the national minimum wage is the best system. I think all the minority parties accept that, too.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Does he accept that enforcement, as well as the fine, is important? Currently, the national minimum wage is enforced only by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Will he give serious consideration to supporting giving local councils the power, as they now have on trading standards, to enforce the minimum wage locally?

Vincent Cable: As the right hon. Gentleman says, the primary authority is HMRC, but it works with other agencies to enforce the national minimum wage. There are some important cases where HMRC has worked with local authorities—I think with Blackpool council and others—to enforce it in areas where we have sensed there is a systematic weakness.

Jim Sheridan: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. The national minimum wage is exactly what it says on the tin: a minimum wage. Does he accept the overwhelming evidence that union-organised work forces are paid more and have better conditions than non-union-organised workplaces?

Vincent Cable: In general, that is the case. However, my experience, from talking regularly to trade unions and employers, is that most of our trade unions, certainly in the private sector, are extremely pragmatic and flexible on wages—indeed, that is one of the reasons why we have had relatively low unemployment. They deserve some credit for that.

David Anderson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. At whatever level the fines are set, will he look at the possibility of reinvesting the money they raise directly into enforcement, so that the enforcement keeps on going to the point where, hopefully, we do not have to fine anybody, because nobody is breaching the rules?

Vincent Cable: In line with the commitment to enforcement, I think we have produced more resources for that. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who will be summating, may want to say a little more about that, but we recognise that the enforcement authorities need resources to do their job.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. As a Conservative Member of Parliament representing a constituency with a lot of social deprivation, I support the national minimum wage and the work of the Low Pay Commission, which is really important. In response to my intervention, the shadow Secretary of State dismissed the Low Pay Commission and talked about restoring the value of the minimum wage. Does my right hon. Friend know what exactly restoring the value of the minimum wage means and how much that would cost?

Vincent Cable: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support and I know that it is shared among his colleagues. This is a historical issue: it has now been laid to rest. I will talk a little more about the mandate of the Low Pay Commission and the fact that successive Secretaries of State, including me, have respected its judgment, which is non-political, non-partisan and represents both the union and employer standpoint.
	Let me talk about the wider economic consequences. The shadow Secretary of State talked with a real sense of righteous indignation about things that are, frankly, blindingly obvious. We have had a massive financial crisis, the biggest in our history—certainly in modern times. As a result, the country is poorer. That is a matter of fact. It is not a polemical point: the country is poorer, and that has been translated into lower earnings. That is simple economic reality and nobody is disputing that.
	In the wake of the economic crisis in 2008-09, we now know that British GDP fell by 7.5%. That was more than after the great crash in 1929 and worse than in any other western country. I am not going into the business of who did what when; I am just recording a matter of fact. Recession inevitably followed the financial disaster
	and real earnings have been affected. The shadow Secretary of State is right on simple matters of fact: real earnings fell by 7% and the minimum wage fell by 5%. That is a matter of fact. What I find so very difficult to understand is that the Opposition Front Benchers—it is not just her; her colleagues are the same—have seen the greatest economic disaster in modern economic history and apparently not noticed it, and they have not taken any account of the inevitable economic consequences. What matters is that the Government of the day seek to mitigate those effects.

William Bain: Does the Secretary of State accept that while he has been in office, the real-terms value of the adult national minimum wage has declined by 50p an hour since May 2010? It is his responsibility to review the remit of the Low Pay Commission. Why is he acting so slowly on this, given that 28% of part-time workers in his constituency are earning less than the living wage? Does that not show the failure he is presiding over on poverty pay across the whole country?

Vincent Cable: I do not know about the numbers, but certainly the minimum wage, in real terms, has declined by 5%, as a result of my predecessor on two occasions and me on three occasions following the advice of the Low Pay Commission.

Alex Cunningham: The RBS bankers and others in the City who led us into this terrible economic situation do a lot better than the national minimum wage, so does the Secretary of State think they should get bonuses of more than 100% of their salaries?

Vincent Cable: I think hon. Members have had a chance to debate that already. I am a great advocate of the new model developed by Handelsbanken of relationship banking and no bonuses—that is what we ought to have—but I suspect that even their branch managers are paid above the minimum wage.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend share the incredulity of Government Members that for all the talk of bankers not having been affected, not one person has condemned the fact that trade union leaders have been getting double-digit pay rises in the same period?

Vincent Cable: I suspect that that is also true, but I am trying to get away from the tribal debate that the shadow Secretary of State was so keen to launch.
	To return to the thread of the argument, we have had a major shock, and it has reduced real earnings and the real minimum wage. I fully acknowledge that; it is a matter of fact. The question is: what is being done to mitigate the effects? Two major changes have taken place. First, the Government have recognised that earnings are not the same as take-home pay and disposable income, and we have therefore concentrated our tax policy on lifting low earners out of tax. As a result, 2.7 million low earners now pay no income tax. Those working 28 hours a week on the minimum wage pay no income tax, while those on 35 hours pay only one third of the income tax they paid at the beginning of this
	Government. We have therefore considerably reduced the impact of the squeeze on real incomes by using tax policy.
	The second highly relevant issue is the level of unemployment. After the great crash in 1929, unemployment rose to 20%. In the recent financial crisis, countries less affected than the UK have had considerably higher unemployment—I am talking about France and Sweden, among others. We reached a peak of 8.5%; it has now gone down to 7% and is falling. We have record numbers of people in work, while the number of jobs has increased by 1.3 million, in the wake of this enormous economic crisis. Now, why has that happened? It has happened because millions of individual workers, realising that there is a choice to be made between jobs and pay, have wisely decided that it is much more important to keep the employment.
	The Low Pay Commission, speaking for the country as a whole, rather than for individuals, has reinforced that assessment. In its 2012 report, it explained its analysis in the following terms—let us remember this is not the Government, but an independent commission representing unions, employers and independent assessors. It said its aim was a minimum wage that helped
	“as many low-paid workers as possible without any significant adverse impact on employment or the economy.”
	That became the mandate—the remit—that I have used, and it is virtually identical to the remit used by my Labour predecessor. I simply ask Labour Members what they object to in that remit. Do they seriously think that the Low Pay Commission and the Secretary of State should ignore the state of the economy or the level of employment? What do they think is fundamentally wrong with the remit?

Gavin Shuker: From the tone of the Secretary of State’s remarks, it is clear that, following the banking crisis of 2008, this is a deep issue that confronts us as a nation. He is right in his analysis, and many workers have chosen not to push for pay rises in the light of that situation. The challenge facing us, however, is surely one that requires a political response. I disagree slightly with his characterisation of this Government’s policy. What it has resulted in has been clearly demonstrated in 41 of the last 42 months, with people being able to buy less with what they are being paid. If he is saying there will be no change, then Opposition Members will continue to call out for that change.

Vincent Cable: I keep hearing the call from Opposition Members for a political intervention. Are the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues saying that this system—a very good system that his Government established, based on the Low Pay Commission analysis—should be torn up and a political settlement imposed? Is he suggesting that the remit, which takes account of the impact of the minimum wage on employment, should be disregarded? Is that the argument?

Michael Connarty: Let me give the Secretary of State an example. The Low Pay Commission recommended against amending section 31(1)(b) of the minimum wage regulations, which allowed employers to pay hospitality workers out of their tips. The last Government took the courageous step of changing that provision and preventing that from happening.
	That is a good example of where politics looks to the good of the individual and does not play to what I believe are the prejudices and fears of people in the Low Pay Commission. Is it not also true that if the minimum wage were raised—I have seen many cases of this—the bill for tax credits would go down and the Government would probably be better off in terms of public sector expenditure?

Vincent Cable: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman may well be right, although I have seen an analysis suggesting that, because of the effect on corporate taxation, which offsets those gains, he is not. However, on the more substantive point about politicians intervening to override the Low Pay Commission, I believe that we should not be dogmatic about it. In the overriding majority of cases, it behoves the Secretary of State to listen carefully to the Low Pay Commission and it would be unusual to override it. He cites one case, and I have actually overridden the Low Pay Commission—on the apprenticeship wage, which I thought was excessively low, giving the wrong signal to young people and others who wanted to do apprenticeships. I made a decision on that specific issue to intervene and disregard the advice of the Low Pay Commission. If that became a habit, however, and if its advice were overridden on a major issue of pay policy, the minimum wage structure would crumble from being politicised in that way.

Brian H Donohoe: To ask a simple question, what is the minimum wage for apprenticeships?

Vincent Cable: I think it is £2.68, and it was going to be frozen at £2.65. [Interruption.] It is a very small increase, but there was an issue of principle involved, which is why I intervened to change it.
	Let me proceed on the issue of the mandate. The Low Pay Commission has consistently regarded jobs as an important objective of policy—rightly, and we must respect that judgment because it is based on serious analysis. Let me quote a good study carried out by the Resolution Foundation, and I believe the National Institute of Economic and Social Research was involved, too. It analysed the effects of a general increase to the living wage level, which Labour Members would like to see happen.
	The analysis suggests that if other things were equal and if all low pay were increased to the level of the living wage, there would be a net loss of 160,000 jobs. Worse than that, there would be a loss of 300,000 jobs among the unskilled and among young workers, because massive substitution would take place. That does not mean that the living wage is a bad idea as a voluntary principle, but it does spell out very brutally what would happen if Governments ignored the Low Pay Commission and took a cavalier view of the impact of the minimum wage on jobs.

Chris Williamson: Is that not precisely the argument that was used by those who opposed the introduction of the national minimum wage in the first place? Is this not just a repetition of that flawed argument?

Vincent Cable: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is an argument to which the trade unions on the Low Pay Commission fully subscribe. This is the first time that I have heard Members seriously question the competence of the Low Pay Commission and challenge the whole principle of its remit. I am appalled and alarmed that they should want to tear up and politicise a basically good system which has worked well under the last Government and under this one, in different circumstances. That really is very dangerous.

Alec Shelbrooke: What I find strange—I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees with me—is that the subject of the living wage keeps popping up on the Opposition Benches. Today’s debate is about the minimum wage, and the Labour motion does not call for the Low Pay Commission even to consider the issue of the living wage.

Vincent Cable: Indeed. Admittedly the issue of the living wage is now part of the public debate, and of course I believe that if employers are profitable they should adopt it—particularly if they are taking advantage of their work forces—but we must be clear about the fact that making the living wage mandatory, either directly or indirectly, would have enormous implications for jobs.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: I will give way once more.

Mark Lazarowicz: The fact is that millions of workers are now enjoying the living wage because of the actions of local authorities—the vast majority of them Labour-controlled—and progressive employers. Rather than just saying that the living wage is a good idea, should not the Government encourage employers to adopt the living wage through specific measures, such as those suggested by Labour in the motion and in our policies generally?

Vincent Cable: I have noticed the word “encourage” before. Ministers are being told that they should encourage employers to pay the living wage. I have thought about that: what does it actually mean? It is motherhood and apple pie on one level, but if we take it seriously, what does it mean?
	If I encounter a company that is perfectly profitable, particularly if it seems to be taking advantage of its work force, of course I will urge it to pay the living wage, but many companies are on the brink of bankruptcy. Would Members urge them to increase their pay levels substantially in those circumstances? That would be extremely irresponsible. These bland phrases, although they may be superficially attractive, are potentially very dangerous.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Vincent Cable: I have given way a number of times, and I should now like to finish what I have to say.
	Along with the element of its remit that relates to the impact on employment, one of the key concepts in the work of the Low Pay Commission is what it calls the “bite”. That terrible bit of jargon refers to the relationship between the minimum wage and the median. It may be
	technical, but it is very important, because the closer the minimum wage gets to the median, the more likely it is that a big increase will displace employment. When the minimum wage was first introduced in 1999, it was about 46% of the median; now it is 53%, and there have been successive increases.

Angus MacNeil: The median wage is falling.

Vincent Cable: It did fall slightly last year—just slightly. However, the minimum wage is now significantly above that level.
	That is a major issue for young workers and for apprenticeships. For young workers, particularly those aged 16 and 17, the so-called bite is close to 80%, which means that any significant increase in the minimum wage would have the unfortunate effect of displacing most of them from the labour force. That is a factor that has weighed very heavily with the Low Pay Commission when it has made its recommendations.

Grahame Morris: Will the Secretary of State give way? I will be very brief.

Vincent Cable: I will be indulgent.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. He is being very generous, and I appreciate the way in which he has engaged with interventions. May I just put one thought in his mind? A number of very profitable companies are offering their workers—many of them young workers—zero-hours or four-hours contracts, which have a terrible effect on a person’s ability not just to live but to exist.

Vincent Cable: I have already said in the House on several occasions that the Government are now engaged in a public conversation about how we deal with zero-hours contract abuses. I think the hon. Gentleman has to be careful as the research that has been carried out suggests that very large numbers of people on zero-hours contracts like that model, but we must deal with the abuses, of course.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Vincent Cable: It would be remiss of me not to take at least one intervention from the Scottish nationalists, so I will do so.

Angus MacNeil: May I put in the right hon. Gentleman’s mind the words of Paul Krugman earlier this week? He spoke about unemployment insurance and how when money is in the hands of the poorest in society, that creates demand, which in turn creates jobs. The corollary of that is that the higher the minimum wage, the more money is put in people’s pockets and the more it circulates, and we return to a system, as in the 1950s, when inequality is reduced, rather than the situation now, when inequality is equivalent to what it was in the 1920s.

Vincent Cable: Of course an increase in wages among other things increases demand, and that is one factor that has to be taken into account. That leads me on to the next point I want to make, which is how this year I have approached the issue of the mandate of the Low Pay Commission. Opposition Members have been
	questioning that and saying, “Why don’t you change the way we look at it?” I have done that, while respecting its independence. I have said the Government want a faster increase in the minimum wage, reflecting the fact we now have a real recovery, and in order to achieve that the LPC should look at a wider range of factors governing low pay. They include the fact that at the national economy level, the Governor of the Bank of England has now said that if unemployment falls to 7%, he would want there to be some tightening of monetary policy, as the environment will have changed. We would want to see what impact that will have on the cost of employment, which has been cushioned by the Chancellor’s decision to bring in the employment allowance—£2,000 for the first employee—as it significantly changes the cost of employment. We also need to look at the impact it would have on the Government, because there is an interaction with tax credits, tax yields and corporate taxation. There is the impact on take-home pay, too, and therefore we have to factor in our tax policy.
	I have therefore asked the LPC to look at this problem in a much more holistic way. I do not know what it will conclude, and I will be respectful of its independent advice, but that is the way we are approaching this and we do now recognise that in a recovering economy low-paid workers should derive benefits, and that is how we are approaching this matter.

Katy Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Vincent Cable: I have taken several interventions already.
	Finally, let me say a few more words about enforcement. Clearly the minimum wage is only effective if it is properly enforced and has the force of law. It is important not just for its own sake but to give workers confidence that if they complain, those complaints will be followed through. There are several levels as enforcement is a complicated process. First, it is a problem of securing arrears and then imposing fines. We then have a name and shame system, and ultimately there is prosecution in court, but that has hardly been used either under the last Government or this one because it requires a demonstration of proof of intent, which is very difficult to demonstrate.
	Let me explain how these various levels are now operating. In the last year, arrears of about £4 million were paid, compared with an average of about £3 million over recent years. About 26,000 workers benefited from that. Fines are crucial, because under the last Government and this one, that is where the main enforcement action has been taken. Last year 700 enforcement cases were taken to the level of fines. The amount paid was seven times as much as was paid under the last year of the Labour Government. One can argue about this from one year to another, and these things fluctuate, but any suggestion that the regime has become easier is simply not true.

Michael Connarty: rose—

Vincent Cable: I am going to proceed to the end of my speech.
	We are now in the process of considerably increasing the penalties, both in terms of raising the fine from £5,000 to £20,000, subject to the House approving the
	legislation, and applying it per worker rather than per firm, which is, of course, much more draconian.
	The new guidelines for the naming and shaming process were issued to HMRC in October. There is also the question of due process. Companies that are about to be named and shamed can appeal, and it is estimated that that process takes roughly 150 days. I imagine that a significant number of cases would begin to emerge by the end of February; we can test that when the issue arises.
	To summarise, we have a good system, but we want to strengthen it, and to strengthen enforcement. We also want to respect the principles of the Low Pay Commission. We want to see improvements to the minimum wage, but that needs to be done properly, through the independent Low Pay Commission. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the motion, and to support the Government’s amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There will be a five-minute time limit on all Back-Bench contributions in this debate. That might need to be reviewed, but I hope not.

Tessa Jowell: Having listened closely, as I always do, to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, I am hard pressed to see how he can recommend voting against our motion, which focuses on the enforcement of the national minimum wage.
	The existence of a national minimum wage is a major statement about the kind of country that we are. Beyond the clichés about hard-working families, what does hard work actually involve? Are we prepared to be citizens and representatives in a country where too many mothers ship their children from one childminder to another, often late at night and very early in the morning, because they work for employers who do not honour their statutory obligation to pay the national minimum wage? This is about decency, and if the Government are serious about the enforcement and enforceability of the national minimum wage, they must surely acknowledge that the proposals in the motion are unexceptional.
	I am proud to have been part of the Government who introduced the national minimum wage, and I hope that that progressive change has now become irreversible. Over its lifetime, one of its most powerful effects has been to start to close the gender pay gap. It stood at more than 16% when the national minimum wage was introduced in 1999; its present level of 9.2% is still unacceptable. The greatest burden resulting from the lack of growth in the economy and from the Government’s tax and benefit changes has been borne by women. Women’s employment is also concentrated in poorly paid occupational groups that include care, cleaning and catering. Whatever low pay threshold is used, the proportion of working women who are low-paid is about twice that of working men on low pay.
	The need for enforcement of the national minimum wage goes without saying, and the failure to enforce it is a stain on the stated ambition of the Government.
	I commend the next stage of the ambition, which is to move towards a living wage. I pay tribute to Citizens UK and, in particular, to London Citizens, which have been at the forefront of introducing the living wage since 2005—so much so that 214 London employers and 12 London councils have now signed up to pay it.
	Many opportunities are open to the Government to urge more employers to pay the living wage: the leverage of procurement; the increased tax receipts for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs resulting from more people being in better-paid jobs; and the practical benefits that businesses that pay the living wage report, such as more corporate resilience and social purpose, reduced absentee rates, greater loyalty and enhancement of the quality of work. Good businesses know that the living wage is good for their business; this is about the interconnection between corporate success, commercial success and social purpose.
	When we talk about changes to the benefits system, we must remember that the living wage is one way in which we move families off and out of tax credits, and shift the responsibility for decent levels of pay from the state—the social security system—to employers. Having rather curtailed my remarks, I wish to finish by saying that we can follow the example of the best of business, but we should also remember what the difference means to families. The mother whose child—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Robert Halfon: The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who opened this debate, is right about one thing: it was a mistake for my party to have opposed the minimum wage. I am glad that we support it now. If we are honest about our mistakes, the Opposition need to be honest about what went on: that it was a mistake to abolish the 10p income tax rate; that median real wages stopped rising from 2003; and that the value of the minimum wage did not decrease from 2010 but from 2008. All of us have made mistakes in these areas, and the Opposition should have welcomed the fact that we have taken 2 million lower earners out of tax altogether.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was also a mistake to put in petrol price rises year after year—Labour would have added the equivalent of 64p a gallon by this time—which dig directly into hard-working people’s pockets?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is right; our party has a relentless focus on helping the lower paid. We should support the minimum wage because we are the party of aspiration and working people, and increasing the minimum wage eliminates the poverty trap, cuts the benefits bill and encourages more people to get back into work. If we do just one thing, it should be to increase the minimum wage at least to reflect the increase in inflation over the past few years.
	I also urge the Government to institute a regional minimum wage—in addition to the national minimum wage, not as a substitute for it—because of the different costs of living in different parts of the country. I am talking about the differing costs not just from north to south, but within regions. That has been done in other
	countries, such as Canada and the United States, where individual states can set minimum wage rates above the federal minimum. We need to consider such an approach seriously.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend and I represent constituencies in Essex, where the cost of living is higher than it is in other parts of the country. Does he agree that we often see people trapped in a life on benefits because it does not pay to work as a result of the loss in housing benefit owing to higher property prices?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Conservative party is the workers’ party. We are here to get people out of dependency and back into work, and the Labour party is the party of benefits.
	Although it is important to support a fair wage, we must not hurt small businesses—the Secretary of State was exactly right on that. We should move towards a living wage, but there are ways of doing it. The important thing is to put the burden on government to achieve the living wage, not on businesses. I support the minimum wage and the living wage, but we have to make sure that they are not raised to unsustainable levels. Labour’s solution of offering companies tax breaks if they pay employees the living wage for a year is said with the best of intentions, but it has flaws because it does not fully offset the cost. Many companies would still be unable to meet the additional cost of paying their workers an extra £2 an hour. It would also only last a year, so many people would not benefit in the long term.
	We should remember that 5 million low earners in Britain are earning less than £10,000 a year. To achieve the living wage, we need to look at two ends of the equation. First, we could reintroduce the 10p income tax band. That would halve the income tax bill for those on the minimum wage and significantly reduce the cash gap between the minimum wage and the living wage. It would also cost less than raising the personal allowance, and ensure that people continue to pay into the system while letting them keep more of their own money. Alternatively, we could continue raising the threshold of income tax. Those are the ways to get people up to a living wage, and I am happy with either solution.
	National insurance is the one tax that is still taken directly out of lower earners’ pay packets. A worker who earns around £7,500, which is around half of what the Government say they need to live on, still pays national insurance. We should take a small step to help the lower paid by increasing the national insurance threshold, so that it is in line with income tax for employees. The 2020 Tax Commission found that nearly three-quarters of company bosses said that national insurance contributions curbed the rates they paid their staff.
	A bigger step would be to remove altogether national insurance and income tax from the national minimum wage, which would mean that someone working 40 hours a week would be earning just £10 a week less than someone who is currently earning the living wage. If we did that, national insurance and income tax could be merged into just one tax.
	Although some argue that we need to maintain national insurance because of the contributory principle, it effectively acts as a double income tax, and a contributory system
	could be transferred into any consolidated form. Such a system could have enormous benefits, such as a simplification of the tax system, greater transparency, fewer administration costs and it would leave workers with more money in their pockets. It would be costly, but there would be benefits, such as people spending more and being less reliant on the state for welfare and encouraging people back into work. It would benefit all low-paid workers, especially those who work just part time. It should be the long-stated aim of my party to try to introduce this over a number of years.
	As Conservatives, we are on the side of hard-working people, which is why we capped taxes for 20 million-plus lower earners. It is right that the Government increased the personal allowance, but if the slogan “For hard-working people” is to mean something, we have not only to become the workers’ party but to shout from the roof tops our support for the minimum wage. A real-terms rise in the national minimum age, a regional top-up and raising the national insurance threshold would give us legitimacy as the party standing up for millions of workers.

Chris Ruane: I was elected in 1997 in a Labour landslide on a manifesto with a commitment to introduce the national minimum wage. It was Keir Hardie who, in 1906, put forward the idea of a national minimum wage and it took almost 100 years to deliver it. Incidentally, he also proposed devolution for Wales, Ireland and Scotland and reform of the House of Lords. Both of those were introduced after Labour’s historic win in 1997.
	When I was a parliamentary candidate in 1996, I organised a low-pay survey in my constituency. The person who came out top—or should I say bottom—was a taxi driver who was on £1 an hour. There were other incidences of women in the care sector who were working 12-hour night shifts for £2.50 an hour.
	Seaside towns such as Rhyl probably benefited more than anywhere else from the introduction of a national minimum wage. A table produced by the House of Commons Research Department shows that 29% of those who worked in hotels and restaurants and in the entertainment industry were affected by the national minimum wage. In seaside towns, we have a huge number of care homes and the second biggest sector to benefit, at 15.1%, was the one that undertakes community and social services activities. Seaside towns have done really well under the national minimum wage.
	Could any of us in the Chamber today work for £1 an hour or its equivalent today? Could we have brought up our families on £2.50 an hour, working throughout the night? I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on these issues, as he is what I would consider to be a compassionate Conservative, but he said that he was concerned about unsustainable levels when this is about trying to increase pay for people on the lowest rung by 50p or £1 an hour. We never hear about the unsustainable levels of high pay. For example, two captains of industry in the energy companies were given £14 million and £15 million golden handshakes without a peep from the Conservative party. It is one law for the rich and one for the poor.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend spoke about care workers’ pay before the 1997 election. I was then a negotiator for care workers in the public sector, who were getting at least £5 an hour—twice as much. We introduced this legislation because people were being exploited by private companies. Is that not the same worry that we see today?

Chris Ruane: I concur entirely.
	When we want to improve the efficiency of businesses, we say that we must pay those at the top as much as we can to reward their energy and enterprise and that we must reduce the pay of those at the bottom because is in their own best interest. There is one rule for the rich and one for the poor.

Katy Clark: Of course, we did not hear from the Secretary of State this afternoon about the fact that although most people in this country face a cost of living crisis and although wages are going down for the vast majority, those at the top are doing very well, thank you very much. The salaries of chief executives and those at the top are soaring. At the time of the 1997 election, we heard time and again that we could not afford the national minimum wage. Does my hon. Friend agree that the arguments we are hearing now should be treated in the same way as those arguments were then?

Chris Ruane: Absolutely. The Conservatives were whingeing when I raised these points, but it is obscene that the Chancellor of the Exchequer scurries off to Brussels to protect the multimillion pound bonuses of British bankers at the same time as he is reducing workers’ rates by £1,600 a year.

Stephen Barclay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Ruane: No, I will not.
	More than 7,000 people have visited me in Parliament since I was elected in 1997. Many have been schoolchildren and sixth formers. I always allocate a good period of time for questions and one of the most common questions, “What are you most proud of from your 16 years as an MP?” I am most proud of this piece of legislation, which Labour introduced in 1998. It is totemic. It was an indicator at that historical time of what Labour was about and what the Tories were about. We were for the many and they were for the few. I welcome the massive U-turn that the Conservatives have made on that, but it is too little too late.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Chris Ruane: I am afraid that I must make progress, as I am now using up my own time. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for their interventions as they gave me an extra two minutes, which I am eating into now.
	The policy was resisted tooth and nail by the Tories. The House sat for two days in the Chamber and there were 70 hours of debate in Committee between 22 January and 17 February 1998. The Tories made the direst predictions about the introduction of the national minimum wage, predicting that 2 million jobs would be lost and
	every single person who received an increase would be sacked. That was absolute nonsense; an extra 2 million jobs were created.
	The then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), said:
	“He is right: the adoption of a minimum wage and the social chapter would gravely inhibit employment opportunities in Wales. There is no question about that.”—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 461.]
	What about when the Conservatives were closing down the steel mills and the coal mines in south Wales? Did that gravely inhibit employment opportunities in Wales? He said:
	“Adoption of the social chapter and a minimum wage would price tens of thousands out of their jobs along with hundreds of thousands throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 17 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 609.]
	He was on the mild side in referring to hundreds of thousands; the Conservative party nationally was predicting 2 million job losses. The Conservatives fought tooth and nail against the legislation, but it was passed. That is the proudest moment of my time here in the House.
	In my constituency, we saw no job losses. We saw the number of people in employment go from 23,000 to 30,000. The St Asaph business park, which was built by the Conservatives in my constituency at the cost of £11 million, was empty for seven years. When Labour came to power, it was filled, and there are now more than 2,000 jobs on the park.
	The national minimum wage legislation is fantastic, but we should not rest on our laurels. We need to move upwards and onwards to the next frontier, which, as has been mentioned by hon. Members, including shadow Ministers, is zero-hours contracts and a living wage. We need to push for better conditions and better payments for workers. That is in the best interests of those workers, their families and the economy.

Gordon Birtwistle: The Opposition motion mentions that the Liberal Democrats were all against the minimum wage. I do not think that many current Liberal Democrat Members were here 14, 15 or 16 years ago. As a Liberal Democrat, I was always in favour of the minimum wage, and the engineering company that I owned always paid well over the minimum wage. If companies want really skilled people to work for them, they find that the minimum wage is far below what skilled workers are paid today.
	I was a little bit offended by the attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). She should apologise for the fact that she did not understand the reasons why he was not in the House at the time. I accept that she is new and probably inexperienced, but hon. Members need to know the reasons why someone did something before attacking them in the House.
	As has been said many times by the Secretary of State, we went through an appalling crash. There is no getting away from the fact that the Labour party and the bankers drove the country virtually into bankruptcy, and we have had to do something about it. We have managed to maintain employment. As has been said, 1.5 million people are now working who were not expected to work. The Opposition’s hope for a triple-dip
	recession has not happened. We have managed to drag the economy round and things are moving on, but these things need to be explained.
	What can the Government do about the minimum wage? I agree that the Low Pay Commission should look at the minimum wage. I believe that it should be given the right and the power to decide what the minimum wage is, and it is quite right, as the Secretary of State said, that we should not have political interference in things of that nature.
	What have the Government done to try to mitigate what we have got? By the fact that the Government have been doing what they have with the economy, we have managed to keep interest rates really low. Let us imagine what would have happened if we had gone along with the Labour party’s proposals on the economy. What would interest rates be now? We have mitigated the effects of a lot of the low salaries by keeping interest rates and mortgage rates down to a very low level. If we look across the rest of Europe, we see interest rates in Greece and similar places that have climbed to as much as 20%. Let us imagine what would have happened in this country if we had allowed that to happen. We have mitigated those effects.
	All right, the country has not been able to increase the national minimum wage, and I for one would like that to happen. As the Government’s apprenticeship ambassador, I would certainly like the minimum wage for apprentices to increase, because we should be investing in young people and delivering jobs of the future, and we are now doing so. If I had the authority to speak to the Low Pay Commission, I would ask it to look at that issue.

Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who sit alongside him like to say that we are all in this together, but he will know that those with the highest earnings, such as the chief executives, are doing very well and their wealth is increasing, and the profits of many companies have risen considerably. Should not those factors be taken into account along with the cost of living crisis when looking at the level of the national minimum wage?

Gordon Birtwistle: The very profitable companies, such as the big engineering companies and the major multinationals, invariably pay well over the minimum wage. Many minimum wage payments occur, for example, in the care industry and those industries where low pay is accepted. I agree that if a company is profitable and doing well, it should recognise that its employees are creating not only wealth for the chief executive but wealth and security for themselves and for the country. I agree that companies should recognise what employees do, and the vast majority that do so pay a lot more than the national minimum wage.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is actually referring to the productivity gains that have been made. Studies in the United States of America show that the productivity gains have gone to the top 1%. The federal wage in the United States is about $7.25. Had that kept pace with the minimum wage in the 1960s and had the productivity gains been distributed at that level, the federal wage would have been treble the present rate. It is a fair bet that the same would be happening in other western countries, this one included.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am not conversant with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not study the wage rates of the federal states of America. I have enough to do looking at rates in the UK. But we have kept inflation low and we have mitigated the effect of that on the minimum wage, and we have also managed to create extra jobs and wealth. It is interesting that the motion says that the Opposition agree with making work pay. That is the first time since I became a Member in this House that the Opposition have agreed with making work pay. Hallelujah! They have always had a go at Government Members for promoting work to create wealth for families instead of paying out in benefits. I am over the moon about those three words. If they were in the motion, I would vote for it; unfortunately, they are not.
	The Opposition do not have the confidence to include in the motion what they believe the minimum wage should be. I understand that what they suggest runs for only 12 months. What will happen after 12 months? Will everyone go back to what they had before, or will people lose their jobs? It is a half-baked motion. [Interruption.] It is part of the non-economic plan. There is no long-term plan—or a short-term plan. There is no plan at all. The majority of the statements in the motion have been covered in the amendment, which is a far more sensible approach. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

William Bain: Nothing speaks more to how the economy simply does not work at the moment for ordinary people in this country than this Government’s record of dither and inaction on low pay. It should be genuinely shaming for every Member of this House that the United Kingdom had the fifth worst levels of poverty pay in the OECD in 2013. We should also remember today the tireless work of living wage campaigners, trade unions and those enlightened employers across the United Kingdom who accept that our country has no future as a low-skill, poverty-wage economy and who have achieved fairer deals for workers from the financial services sector through to local government.
	Now the Government must meet their share of the responsibilities by using the procurement system more effectively to secure the living wage for workers through Government contracts wherever that is possible, because although the burden of poverty pay falls most heavily on the working poor, who are now using food banks in record numbers, it is paid for by every single taxpayer in this country. They are subsidising, through the tax and benefit systems, unacceptable levels of low wages paid by bad employers. That also damages the interests of good employers.
	Over the past three decades, the share of growth finding its way into the pay packets of ordinary workers on the lower half of the income scale has slumped to just 12p in every £1 of GDP growth generated. Having denied for months that there is a cost of living crisis in our country, the Business Secretary and the Government now ring their hands, for ever pledging change in the future but failing to take the action needed now to enforce the minimum wage properly, to reverse its real-terms fall in value under this Government, or to produce any long-term plan to restore the broken link between growth,
	productivity and wage growth, which is vital to generating a lasting uplift in living standards for millions of people across our country.
	The Chancellor has been sending out mixed messages over the past few weeks ahead of his Budget. He has briefed some newspapers that a significant uplift in the minimum wage is on the way, but other newspapers have received a different story. Whatever he announces on 19 March will be weighed against the fact that under his stewardship since May 2010 the real-terms value of the adult minimum wage has fallen by 50p an hour. He is also launching a £600 million stealth raid on work incentives for the low-paid through the freeze in the work allowance of universal credit for the next three years. A single parent with children will be up to £230 a year worse off as a result of that sneaky change buried deep in the documents that accompanied the autumn statement.
	Business investment is flatlining, exports are poor, productivity is weak, the squeeze on wages is extending into 2015, and people are working longer hours than they did in 2008 but have a lot less to show for it. This is not a Government who can say that they have a credible long-term plan to boost the living standards of ordinary working people in Britain.
	The Government should be enforcing the minimum wage better. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said that bad employers would be named and shamed, but we have seen nothing of that so far. The Office for National Statistics told me at the end of last month that nearly 300,000 people across our country are being paid less than the minimum wage, including 17,000 in Scotland, yet we have seen only two prosecutions over the past four years, and the average fine for each breach was only £1,500.

Mel Stride: Does the hon. Gentleman not welcome, as I do, the fact that we are moving from a fine of up to £5,000 per company to a fine of up to £20,000 per employee who does not receive the minimum wage? If 50 employees in a company were affected, presumably the fine could be as much as £1 million.

William Bain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but that would simply mean that the maximum fine was only 40% of the maximum fine for fly-tipping in this country. Is he genuinely saying that there should not be an equivalence between the maximum fine for fly-tipping and the maximum fine for failing to pay the national minimum wage? I urge him to think again.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that minimum wages must have some link with productivity? Productivity is like a cake, with workers and CEOs each getting a slice, and that is what is making the difference to equality in this country.

William Bain: Unusually, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman; I will try not to make this a bad habit. He is right that industrial policy has a big part to play.
	We need to be creating better-skilled jobs to replace those lost over the course of 30 years. We also need a transformation in skills in the workplace, because evidence
	from this country and from the OECD shows that an uplift in skills gives people the ability to progress in a job, to get new jobs, and to see a lasting increase in their wage levels across their career. That is what we need to be doing across our country in our industrial policy.
	The scale of the crisis is being felt in every part of the United Kingdom. A written answer that I received from the Cabinet Office last Thursday, at column 250W of Hansard, shows that according to the most recent survey of wages and hours worked, conducted last April, over 16% of my constituents were paid less than the hourly rate for the living wage. Startlingly, in Chingford and Woodford Green, the constituency of the Work and Pensions Secretary, work is not paying under this Government, because 43% of workers are earning less than the living wage, including two in every three male part-time workers. That shows the scale of what is happening even in the constituencies of members of the Cabinet such as the Work and Pensions Secretary.
	The case is clear: there has to be an increase in the minimum wage. We can work towards the living wage through Make Work Pay contracts, but the Government should be fulfilling their responsibilities in saying to the Low Pay Commission that low-wage Britain needs a pay rise, and needs it now.

Alec Shelbrooke: As I recently outlined, I am not in favour of a statutory living wage, but I am in favour of raising the minimum wage.
	A rise in the minimum wage, as national wage growth returns, fundamentally leads to a smaller state, as has been outlined by Labour Members. Now that the Government have reduced business taxes—national insurance, corporation taxes and small business taxes—and brought in last year’s rebate, the time is right to look at how we can create a sustainable growth in the wages of the lowest-paid by giving the taxation that the Government were taking back to the people who are creating the wealth in companies. That means that the potentially inflationary pressures will not occur because the Government are not taking tax from a company just to give it back to a worker.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend talks about the Government cutting business taxes. Does he agree that they have also raised taxes for the rich by increasing capital gains tax from 18% to 28% and increasing to 45p the 40p rate that existed in the 13 years under Labour?

Alec Shelbrooke: My hon. Friend puts it most eloquently, as always.
	This is an uncomfortable truth for Labour Members. [Interruption.] They have been yelling and shouting this afternoon, and they are at it again now as soon as they do not want to hear an inconvenient truth. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) put forward the false premise that Government Members are saying we should increase wages for the people at the top and cut them for those at the bottom—no Government Member has ever made such a comment; it was a disgraceful thing to say—but failed to mention that under his party’s Government, the noble Lord Mandelson said that he was perfectly comfortable with people getting “filthy rich”.

Angus MacNeil: Is not this debate about the division of the spoils of productivity? We are looking for a division that is more like that of the 1950s, when those at the bottom were given a larger percentage than they get at the moment and those at the top got a smaller percentage. We now have a share-out of the spoils that is creating a level of inequality between sectors of society that we have not seen since the 1920s.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that extra minute. I will come to my own history lesson in a moment. He will of course welcome the fact that under this Government the gap between the poorest and the richest in society is the smallest it has been for 30 years, having grown under the previous Labour Government.
	Let us talk about the problems of falsely increasing wages and go back to the 1970s. In 1975, my parents, who were young teachers, were given a 25% pay rise under Harold Wilson and were delighted with it. Twelve months later they suffered a 3% pay cut, because inflation had gone up to 28%. We also remember the then Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, demanding wage restraint at the Labour party conference, only to be booed by the floor. Having listened to this afternoon’s speeches, I am sure that some Members present would boo him now, too.
	Wage inflation creates a real problem for people on fixed incomes who have worked hard their entire lives and paid into private pension funds, only to then see them eroded by inflation running out of control. For example, in 1965 my great uncle retired at the age of 65 on what was then a very reasonable pension of £15 a week. By the mid-1970s it was absolutely worthless.
	If we go ahead with wage inflation in the way suggested by the Labour party without linking it to cutting taxes for business and making sure that it is sustainable, we will end up, as Neil Kinnock said, with a Labour council running around the city in taxis, giving out redundancy notices.

Eilidh Whiteford: The problem for people on the minimum wage, though, is that it simply has not kept pace with inflation. Those people would each have been £675 better off had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation, even over the past five years.

Alec Shelbrooke: I entirely agree with everything the hon. Lady has just said. She is absolutely right. The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, but neither has anybody else’s wage, because of the devastation that the Labour party caused to the economy. It is going to take decades to get this country back on track, but what we are seeing now is a long-term, credible economic plan that is leading to real growth in business and GDP.
	It is fundamentally evil to introduce policies that create inflation which people who are on fixed incomes and who have worked hard all their lives are unable to keep up with. Such policies must sound very good to the Islington elite as they sit around their dinner tables and say, “Let’s talk about a living wage. We must have a living wage.” It is notable, however, that Labour’s motion does not encourage the Low Pay Commission to look at a living wage.

Dave Watts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alec Shelbrooke: I have already given way quite a lot, so I am afraid that I will not use up any more time. Having listened to the contributions of Labour Members, it seems to me that every single one of them has a different idea of what to do with a living wage.
	Conservative Members accept the lessons of the past. Our party accepts that it was wrong to oppose the minimum wage. The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and many Conservative Members have made that clear. Indeed, we are a party of young people from normal backgrounds these days. As the previous Member for South Shields said, the trouble is that the Conservative party is the party with working-class people in it and the Labour party is full of failed polytechnic lecturers. The fact is that their philosophising and great ideas that sound good around the table have a real impact on the lives of people at the bottom of society.
	Those who cannot afford to keep up with inflation because their income may not rise with it need proper, sustainable policies. One such policy is the opportunity we have taken in this economic climate to cut taxes on business and cut the national insurance contributions of business leaders and employers, followed by making sure that those tax cuts go back to the people who create the wealth in the first place. That is a sustainable and sensible policy and a long-term economic plan. For all those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Chris Williamson: Last Wednesday was fat cat Wednesday—the day by which top executives in FTSE 100 companies had, two days after returning to work from the Christmas holidays, earned more money than the average worker, let alone someone on the minimum wage, will earn in the entire year.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), I undertook a job centre survey in 1996—in Derby—and I was absolutely shocked by the number of jobs on offer at £1 an hour or less. It had a hugely civilising effect on our country when the Labour Government, who were elected in 1997, introduced the national minimum wage and took millions of people up the income scale as a consequence.
	We know that the national minimum wage was opposed by the Conservatives in this place and elsewhere in the country, and that the Liberal Democrats could not really make up their mind: some were in favour and some against. True to form, since returning to power, they have frozen the amount of resources available for its enforcement. That is utterly disgraceful, because the consequence of the freeze is to make it that much more difficult to bring to book exploitative employers who pay below the minimum wage.
	I have to say that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was all over the place when he addressed the House. He said that the political process should not interfere with the Low Pay Commission, but he went on to say that he had interfered on some occasions, and let us remember that it was a political decision to bring in the national minimum wage in the
	first place. Given the Government’s parsimony in relation to ensuring that the necessary resources are available to the enforcement body, I want the Secretary of State to make a political intervention by conferring a formal third-party role on the trade union movement. Trade unions could help to monitor and enforce the minimum wage by ensuring, when they complain about non-compliance, that such complaints are investigated by HMRC as a matter of course, which would make a big impact.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Williamson: I will not take any interventions, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I know that some of my hon. Friends want to speak and they may run out of time.
	We certainly need better enforcement. It annoys me that the Conservative party is quite happy to use taxpayers’ money to subsidise the well-heeled in our society. Not enforcing the minimum wage and, indeed, not supporting the living wage is a case in point, because taxpayers’ money goes to subsidise low pay in our country. We therefore need not just support for the living wage, but greater penalties to ensure that the national minimum wage is enforced. It is welcome that penalties are being increased, but that is still not enough; more needs to be done.
	Let us be clear that, as my hon. Friends have already said, when people on low incomes have more money in their pockets, they spend that money, which creates economic activity and growth, and helps to sustain and create jobs in other industries and businesses. In my view, that is really important.
	Having listened to the Conservatives today and knowing their record from history, it seems to me that one thing is pretty clear: we cannot trust them—or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats—with the national minimum wage. It will take a Labour Government coming to power in 2015 to ensure that the national minimum wage is enforced, that appropriate penalties are imposed on recalcitrant employers and that we can move rapidly towards a living wage to bring all citizens up to a decent standard of living. We owe that to the people of this country, but it will take a Labour Government to achieve it.

Brooks Newmark: I am delighted to follow the robust speech by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). I am probably the first Conservative in the Chamber to begin mine by supporting the first part of the Opposition motion, which states:
	“That this House celebrates the 15th anniversary of the introduction of the National Minimum Wage”.
	I support the minimum wage, as I believe all Government Members do, because it is important to make work pay, to boost living standards and to tackle in-work poverty. I cannot, however, support the rest of the motion.
	The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills recently said:
	“Anyone entitled to the national minimum wage should receive it. Paying anything less than this is unacceptable, illegal and will be punished by law. So we are bringing in tougher financial
	penalties to crackdown on those who do not play by the rules. The message is clear—if you break the law, you will face action. As well as higher penalties, we have made it easier to name and shame employers who fail to pay their workers what they are due.”

Mel Stride: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a significant step forward that the fines will now relate to the individuals who have not received the minimum wage, rather than to the companies?

Brooks Newmark: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will go into that matter in a little more detail in a minute.
	The Government are taking strong action to deal with the last Labour Government’s failure to have a robust system of enforcement for the national minimum wage. I welcome this week’s announcement that tougher financial penalties will be brought in to crack down on those who do not play by the rules.

Justin Tomlinson: I support everything that my hon. Friend has said. When I was an employer, I always recognised that I would get what I paid for. When a business is successful, that success should be shared with its employees. I welcome the fact that the Government are increasing the fines and are naming and shaming businesses, but I want to see the naming and shaming of the decision makers who disgracefully choose to exploit their staff.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend is right that there should be more publicity about those who abuse the system. Naming and shaming is a good idea.
	To put some numbers on what has been said about penalties, in 2012-13 HMRC identified 736 employers who had failed to pay the national minimum wage, which led to the recovery of £3.9 million in unpaid wages for more than 26,000 workers. This week’s announcement will see the penalty for rogue employers raised to up to £20,000. The Government are taking punitive, robust action.
	We should not forget that the last Labour Government left us with the biggest recession in recent history. This Government are helping some of the lowest-paid people in our society by raising the tax threshold and taking more than 2.7 million people out of tax altogether.

David Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brooks Newmark: No, I cannot take any more interventions.
	Furthermore, under this Government we have seen a net increase of almost 1 million jobs. That means that a record 30 million people are in work. In other words, more men and more women are in work than ever before. Youth unemployment is falling. In the past three months, it has fallen by 19,000. I warmly welcome the abolition of employer’s national insurance contributions for the under-21s, which is something that I have campaigned for hard over the past year with the Million Jobs campaign. I encourage businesses to take on young people and to give our young men and women their first step on the job ladder.
	The cost of living is an issue for the low-paid. Given that the recovery is well under way, I ask the Government at least to consider increasing the minimum wage further. I believe that would be a win-win. It would be a win for the low-paid because it would help with the cost of living issues that have been raised by Opposition and
	Government Members. It would also be a win for the Exchequer because it would reduce the amount that is paid in tax credits. Notwithstanding that, I support the Chancellor’s position that we should leave the final judgment to the Low Pay Commission, which takes into consideration the impact on overall employment and on businesses.
	Although I join Opposition Members in celebrating the 15th anniversary of the introduction of the minimum wage, I believe that the Government are tackling the issues that they have raised. I therefore cannot support the overall motion, but will support the Government amendment.

Stephen McCabe: I was one of those in 1998 who spent the night here as Conservative Members did everything in their power to try to stop the national minimum wage legislation. Today, they are still warning about employment risk. Only last week the Chancellor talked about his fear that a rise in the minimum wage would jeopardise jobs and risk the recovery. I am afraid that is all too familiar.
	We are supposed to believe that there is a new-found enthusiasm for the minimum wage on the Conservative Benches. They are leaking stories to the press that suggest there is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat battle over who will promise a hike in the minimum wage in their 2015 manifestos. Well, they are the coalition. If we are all in it together, give us something on account: give us some of it now.

David Burrowes: On support for the living wage, does the hon. Gentleman agree that leading by example is important in the private and public sector, including in Government Departments? Does he recognise that Conservatives have been on the case for a number of years? Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has introduced the London living wage in city hall.

Stephen McCabe: I am a fan of the living wage and I will mention it before I finish.
	Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I am a little cynical, but there is a consistent thread to Tory opposition. In 1983, they abolished the fair wage resolution. In 1993, they abolished wages councils. It took them until 2005 to give a manifesto commitment to retain the minimum wage. Of course, nobody told the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has made successive efforts to sabotage it. All of that is probably why only 14% of people think the Tory party best represents low-paid, private sector workers. The sad truth is that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation and the early gains have been wiped out. In October, those on the minimum wage got a 12p rise while the Government were busy giving millionaire bankers a tax cut worth £100 million. It is funny how that poses so little threat to the economy. In fact, it apparently poses no threat at all, because they are about to give them another one.

Angus MacNeil: Given that the stories of doom about the minimum wage did not amount to anything, does the hon. Gentleman look back with hindsight, as openly and as honestly as he can, and think that the minimum wage could have started on a higher rate without any ill effects?

Stephen McCabe: What is absolutely the case is that we should not be listening to people who want to do anything to squeeze it down now.
	The real tragedy has been the appalling lack of enforcement. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out that there had not been a single prosecution for failure to pay the minimum wage between March 2011 and 2013. I am extremely indebted to the Tory party researcher who contacted me to suggest that the figures my hon. Friend used, which were obtained, as I understand it, from a parliamentary question, were not true. There had indeed been a single prosecution: a Mr Kenneth Ikerrunaan was apparently fined £1,000 on 26 February for non-payment of the minimum wage, as part of a multiple charge sheet that included extensive VAT fraud. Lest Government Members think I am being unfair, I will acknowledge the only other prosecution that has come to light, that of a butcher in Sheffield who was fined £700. Some, of course, argue that the fines are not that important because the Inland Revenue can negotiate penalties, but of the 937 cases subject to penalties so far, the average penalty has been less than £600. That is for people who are defrauding their workers of wages running into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
	I acknowledge plans to increase the maximum fine because, as we heard earlier, it is absurd that people can be fined more for fly-tipping than failure to pay the minimum wage. It will only make a difference if it is used to deter those who treat this law with contempt, and it will only make a difference when we see those employers named and shamed as the fraudsters they are.
	I am pleased that there is some talk about supporting better wages, and I welcome the comments of the director of the CBI, but as well as employers evading their legal responsibilities regarding the minimum wage, it is estimated that nearly 5 million workers in this country do not earn a living wage. I was shocked to discover only last week that the university of Birmingham was refusing to pay 250 of its lowest-paid staff a living wage, but could afford to pay its vice-chancellor a salary increase of £28,000. We need a living wage from those who can afford it, we need an enforcement policy so that the minimum wage can be made a reality, and we need rogue employers who recruit foreign workers to undercut the minimum wage told bluntly that we do not want that kind of business here.

Andy Sawford: It is a pleasure to speak in an incredibly important debate that has huge implications for people in my constituency. In 1905, boot and shoe workers from the second-largest town in my area, Raunds, marched near Parliament to demand fair pay from the War Office, and they won their campaign. There is a long tradition in my constituency of fighting for a living wage, and we all owe a debt of thanks to those hon. Members who passed the minimum wage in 1997. It was, indeed, a great achievement for the Labour party—not just that Labour Government, but the Labour movement—in more than a century of fighting for a better standard of living for working people in this country.
	Today, though, my constituency is plagued by problems, particularly in connection with employment agencies
	that treat many workers unfairly and make unfair deductions from pay—for example, transport costs, unlawfully charging for personal protective equipment and making workers pay a payroll company just to get their own very low pay—and those deductions take people below the minimum wage. The latest scandal involves local agencies charging workers £2.50 a week for personal accident insurance, which they buy for pennies and then sell on at a profit to the worker, when of course the worker is already protected by the employer’s liability insurance. It is another way of bringing down the employer’s premium and scamming the workers.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who I wish well—she recently gave birth to a son—for supporting me in getting Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate to come to Corby to investigate the 32 agencies operating in my area. They found that 12 agencies were breaching the minimum wage law and that £120,000 was payable to more than 3,000 local workers. Two of the investigations have been completed, and penalty charges totalling £1,532 and wages totally £3,154 have been paid back to workers, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. These are very small figures. The remaining 10 agencies have an average of £12,000 to pay back to local workers, but for some of the largest agencies—they are also national agencies—operating in my area that figure will be up to £40,000 or £50,000.
	On the two agencies that have had to pay penalty charges, I must say to the Government that it really is not much money. Having to pay back £1,532, having scammed local workers out of £3,154, is hardly a deterrent to them and other local employers. I appreciate the support from the Government so far, but will the Minister consider whether, in those cases, fines should have been imposed? We know that they have breached the law. If in the other 10 cases we find even more substantial breaches, as we surely will given the figures HMRC is looking at, I hope we will impose fines. I welcome the move to increase the fines announced today. I would like it to go further, but let us acknowledge that the Government are moving in the right direction. Enforcement is critical, however. The increase in the fines is meaningless unless we take enforcement action to deter people from breaching the law. It is a huge rip-off.
	We have taken other initiatives. I am delighted that Channel 4’s “Dispatches” worked with me to investigate the issues in my constituency and did some undercover reporting that was shown on Channel 4. A director of Staffline, one of the biggest agencies in my area with known issues of exploiting workers, was filmed saying that he could ensure, through a legal loophole, that Corby workers would be paid less than workers for a particular company on another site in this country. That is absolutely wrong. These agencies find ways to exploit workers and help companies to do it.
	The companies are responsible for their own actions. I say to them all that they should sign up to the employment agency charter that we have launched in Corby. Some of the best agencies have worked with us because they are proud of their practice. There is a role for temporary employment and there can be a role for agencies in certain circumstances. Some of our local
	employers have signed up, too, but I want them all to sign up. I want them to know that if they do not, we will be on their backs; and that if they break minimum wage law, the Government will fine and fine them properly so that they do not do it again.
	I had hoped to cover other issues on the living wage and, in particular, on zero-hours contracts. I hope all hon. Members will support my private Member’s Bill on zero-hours contracts, which I shall introduce next Friday.

Mary Glindon: In 1999, the national minimum wage lifted 1.5 million people out of poverty pay. As has been said, it was one of the greatest achievements of Labour in power. I am proud to say that my predecessor, Stephen Byers, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was instrumental in introducing this policy, which has made a difference to the lives of so many low-paid workers in the last 15 years. More than 5% of workers earn the minimum wage, and I am pleased to see that, for some, thanks to the work of unions such as GMB and Unison, this has been upgraded to a living wage. If we are serious that work should pay for everyone, including young people, this must surely be achieved for all workers in future, which is Labour’s ambition.
	This debate acknowledges the introduction of the minimum wage and its benefits, but it remains shocking to see that figures from the Office for National Statistics show that last year, 279,000 people received less than the minimum wage. I was disappointed to find that 15,000 of those workers were in the north-east. Those figures show why it is so important to make sure that employers—even in these hard times—comply with the law.
	The general-secretary of the TUC has today welcomed the increases in penalties for employers who fail to pay the minimum wage. She cautioned, however, that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs must have the appropriate resources to enforce those penalties. In fact, the Public and Commercial Services Union has pointed out that there are only 90 full-time staff employed as compliance officers. Although the union welcomes the increase in penalties, it believes that the emphasis needs to be on the worker. The priority should be making sure that employees get the pay they are owed, rather than concentrating only on fining the employer.
	Last year, HMRC managed to get £4 million for workers, but that sum would have been more if HMRC had not had a budget underspend. Since 2010, HMRC has underspent on the national minimum wage enforcement budget, year on year. I agree with PCS that HMRC should have more money for enforcement, but that the Department must not be allowed to underspend in order to meet Government savings targets, which negate those enforcement efforts. I hope that the Government will heed the union and the TUC on this matter.
	Finally, let me raise an issue on behalf of Longbenton air cadets—the top air cadets in the country. Before Christmas, I attended an evening with the cadets about the working of Parliament, in which a role-play Commons debate was acted out. Young people’s pay was debated, and they asked me to raise the issue of apprentices’ wages, which are only £2.68 an hour. Those who have apprenticeships are grateful, but they would like to be
	paid a more realistic wage. After all, who of us in this House could live on £2.68 an hour if we were young today?

John McDonnell: Let me use the last few minutes of the debate to identify some cases, as my comrades have done. We have been asked to name and shame, so let us do that. We have been campaigning in the maritime sector for a national minimum wage for a long time. To be frank, people were disappointed at developments under the last Government, but we did secure a working party between the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Nautilus and the Department, which produced a redefinition of the national minimum wage qualifications for seafarers. It was done on the basis of the individual’s connection with the country and so forth, and we felt that it was a breakthrough, but it is not being enforced.
	Let me provide an example. The most notable exception that we found involved the lifeline passenger freight ferry routes from Portsmouth, Poole and Weymouth to the Channel Islands. They are operated by Condor Ferries, which employs seafarers from outside the European economic area who are paid £2.35 an hour. Despite frequent protests against the pay discrimination by the RMT, the HMRC enforcement team has taken no action, and is not enforcing the Government’s own policy. I agree with the Public and Commercial Services Union that that is because there are so few staff and they are not given enough powers or resources. That firm is a disgrace. We have raised the issue time and again, but we have been completely ignored, and enforcement action is now necessary.
	In 2012, we pointed out that Streamline Shipping was operating a freight service from Aberdeen to the Shetland Islands and exploiting the Government’s lax national minimum wage and Equality Act 2010 regulations to employ Filipino workers and pay them half the minimum wage. We want all workers, whatever their nationality, to be paid a decent wage.
	Another scam has been referred to by my hon. Friends. The cost of accommodation is now being deducted from seafarers’ wages. The sum deducted is currently £4.91 per day, or £34.73 per week. On most ships that sail from our ports, seamen work two weeks on, two weeks off, so that amounts to a deduction of some £70. That is extraordinary. Do the seamen clock off and go home on their own boats? Are dinghies attached to the boats? It is ridiculous, and it is yet another way of undermining pay in the sector.
	Finally, let me take up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) about apprentices’ pay. Along with the UK Chamber of Shipping, the employers and the unions—the RMT and Nautilus—we have embarked on a drive to get young people back on to British ships as ratings. They can train with a grant, and subsequently rise to officer level. We are trying to encourage people to learn the skills of British seafaring so that we can maintain the industry itself. Our efforts are not helped by some recruitment practices, but at least we have a campaign going. Paying people £2.68 an hour, even when they are apprentices, is not acceptable. In the last few years, the apprenticeship
	rate has gone up by 18p. That is a derisory amount, and I do not think that it can serve as an incentive for our young people.
	We want the national minimum wage regulations to be reviewed again. Following a campaign by us, they were reviewed, and we were told that the minimum wage would apply in British waters, but the Government then redefined the concept of British waters, which became a narrow channel consisting basically of the Norfolk Broads. That was about it. As a result, employers were able to pay below the minimum wage, and also to avoid some elements of the Equality Act. That is unacceptable in this day and age. I urge the Government at least to consider enforcement against that company, so that we can use it as an example to make clear to other shipowners that we will not tolerate any more poverty pay on British ships.

David Anderson: The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) reminded us that in 1906 the Labour party was in favour of a national minimum wage. During the 92 years before we got one, the people who kept the light shining for the campaign were members of the trade union movement, although I should add that some union members were not in favour.
	Throughout the dark days of the 1980s and 1990s, the person who led the campaign more than anyone else was Rodney Bickerstaffe, the leader of the National Union of Public Employees and Unison. In 1997, I was proud to sit with Rodney at the first Low Pay Commission hearings, where we gave evidence about what should be done about the national minimum wage. The union argued at the time that the level should be set at £4.15 an hour, but unfortunately the Government of the day, although they were doing the right thing in general, decided to press for a level of £3.60.
	If the Government had listened to the unions, we would not be having a debate about the living wage, because if the minimum wage had been set at £4.15 then, it would be a living wage now. That would not only have been the right thing to do for people in work, but it would have saved the billions of pounds in benefit that we have been spending over the past 15 years to supplement the wages paid by exploitative employers. We could do a lot worse than listen to what the unions are saying now. Unison’s submission to the Low Pay Commission for this year includes a number of recommendations which I hope will be supported by both Front Benches.
	First and foremost, the union makes the point that it is clear that the national minimum wage has slipped behind, and we should move progressively in stages towards having a living wage for all workers. In particular we should make up the ground that has been lost, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, of its being at least 5% behind the retail prices index this year. The Government as well as the trade unions should have that objective going forward.
	The subject of breaches of the legislation has been talked about on both sides of the House. The unions are putting forward the case that there should be a new formal complaints mechanism, meaning that if a trade union, law centre or citizens advice bureau puts forward a formal complaint on behalf of workers, that should
	be treated by HMRC as a formal complaint and must be investigated. That should be supported, because those are the people on the ground with direct contact with workers.
	On enforcement, the unions make the case clearly that instead of freezing funding for enforcement, which is what has happened over the last period, it should be dramatically increased for the people on the ground. If that were the case, we would not be seeing the exploitation that was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Corby (Andy Sawford).
	On penalties, we welcome the increase and the fact that the penalties will be for each worker not just per company, but I asked the Secretary of State whether he will reinvest the money raised through fines in funding for enforcement. That is where it should go. It should not be a windfall to the Treasury so that the vicious circle is continued.
	The right treatment for 18 to 20-year-old apprentices has always been clearly argued for by the trade union movement. The differentiation based on a person’s age is immoral. If somebody is good enough to do the job, they are old enough to do the job and that principle should be enshrined in law. If they are not doing the full job, then differentiation is fair enough, but if they are doing the full job they should be paid the full rate. The Secretary of State mentioned that apprentices were getting a derisory 3p pay increase to £2.68. We cannot buy a pint of beer in this place for £2.68—and before somebody from the TaxPayers Alliance has a go at me about that I will add that we all know that the beer here is subsidised. Apprentice pay should be at least the development or the youth rate. There must also be a discussion about zero-hours contracts and the national minimum wage and exploitation.
	The argument put forward about travel time is an absolute disgrace. The care workers who do such important work for people in our communities are not being paid for travelling from house to house. The Secretary of State says that is illegal, so let us make sure everybody in this country gets behind that. It is also clear that we must give the people running care in this country—the councils and private organisations—the necessary funds.
	It is also a disgrace that people are being made to lose money because of having to live where they work, as has been mentioned. After all, £4.91 might not be very much to us, but it is a big chunk out of some people’s pay.
	Finally, there is another scam: people being made to pay for uniforms and work equipment. That is wrong, it is immoral and it should not happen.

Ian Murray: The small number of Members on the Government Benches at the tail-end of this debate highlights their commitment to the national minimum wage, and I have to say I was slightly disappointed by the Business Secretary’s response to this debate. He said he did not want a tribal debate, and then went on to give a very tribal response to the shadow Secretary of State. He also said he was delighted to have laid regulations today to increase the amount in fines that would be
	payable by employers if they did not abide by the national minimum wage legislation. I do wonder with my cynical nature why those regulations were laid only today yet the Prime Minister announced this policy back in November. Perhaps the Opposition’s calling for this debate has oiled the wheels.
	It was unkind of the Business Secretary to say that the previous Labour Government had only one or two successes, the national minimum wage being one. Several others were shouted at him across the Dispatch Box and he responded by saying perhaps there were those things as well. However, the one thing that the Business Secretary has managed to do—his one great success and what his legacy will be—is to destroy completely the Liberal Democrats party.
	I would like to acknowledge and put on record that we were perhaps slightly unkind to the Business Secretary, not realising the circumstances behind his not voting in favour of the national minimum wage, and we apologise if we got that wrong. However, that does not take away from the fact that the Liberal Democrats were against the national minimum wage when they were campaigning in the run-up to the 1997 election. They supported it in the Chamber on Second and Third Reading of the Bill, but that simply shows that they flip-flopped between what they stated in their manifesto and what they did in the House. I am sure that we have seen that before. Also, in the House of Lords they strengthened the regulations on the requirements for the Government to take enforcement action. I was disappointed by the Secretary of State’s response to this debate.
	When moving the Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage Bill in December 1997, the then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), said that the national minimum wage was
	“a clear example of how a Labour Government can and will make a real difference to the lives of people across Britain, contributing to fairness and prosperity for the many, not the few.”—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 173.]
	How relevant that statement is today.
	Fifteen years have passed, and the national minimum wage is now an economic and political fact of life for us all. It is undoubtedly one of Labour’s proudest achievements, and I wonder whether the present Prime Minister now regrets campaigning against it in the mid-1990s. The then Opposition castigated the policy as a burden on business, arguing that increasing wages at the bottom would cost more than 1 million jobs. It did nothing of the sort. We should celebrate the fact that it contributed to the ending of poverty pay and boosted living standards in this country. That was confirmed by the Low Pay Commission in 2013, when it stated that
	“the research had…found few adverse effects on aggregate employment;…individual employment or unemployment probabilities; or regional employment or unemployment differences.”
	The days when an employer could legally pay someone as little as £1 were brought to an end despite the vehement opposition of the Conservatives.
	It was not only the Conservatives who were against the introduction of the national minimum wage. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the record of the First Minister for Scotland. When he was in this House, he abstained on Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage Bill, and the Scottish National party as a whole did not vote on Third Reading.

Eilidh Whiteford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Murray: I am afraid I do not have time to give way, although I see that when the nationalists are provoked, they tend to respond.
	I want to comment on some of the contributions from both sides of the House to today’s debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) was right to say that the existence of the national minimum wage is a statement about the kind of country we are. She was also 100% right to highlight the real-life impact of low pay on individuals and families, and particularly on women with child care responsibilities, who are disproportionately affected by employers who do not abide by national minimum wage legislation.
	I was quite taken by the remarks of the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). He was right to be contrite, and to apologise for his party’s previous stance on the national minimum wage. Unfortunately, however, as recently as yesterday, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) wrote in the Evening Standard that any increase in the national minimum wage would be a
	“massive jobs tax on business”.
	He also described it as “oversold”, and said that this
	“policy cross-dressing is more likely to confuse than impress voters”.
	Perhaps the hon. Member for Harlow is a lone voice on the Conservative Benches when it comes to defending the national minimum wage in the trenches. That would be a shame.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said that the very low-paid could not even comprehend the pay packets of the most wealthy in this country. He summed up the debate well when he said that the minimum wage was for the many and not for the few. He also reminded us that the National Minimum Wage Bill Committee sat for an unprecedented 70 hours. Anyone here who has served on Bill Committees over the past four years will realise that to do so for 70 hours involves quite an undertaking. That just shows the then Government’s commitment to getting the legislation through.
	I am always delighted to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) speak in the Chamber, although I never agree with a word that he says. Given that he is a Liberal Democrat, I thought he might have been a little more contrite on this subject. Let us give credit where it is due, however. He did say that he had always supported the national minimum wage and always paid it. If any of the hon. Gentleman’s employees or former employees want to get in touch to dispel that rumour, we would be willing to hear from them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) reminded the House of the statistic that the UK has the fifth worst levels of poverty pay in the OECD. We should be doing something about that. He also mentioned the impact of low pay on the welfare budget, and the fact that since 2010 the national minimum wage has fallen behind to the tune of 50p an hour.
	The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), always an entertaining speaker in this House, talked about how increasing wages for the lowest paid was false and fake. I do not think the pay of the poorest in this society is false and fake, but I did enjoy
	his restatement of the Tories’ trickle-down policy of economics in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) talked passionately about the need for effective enforcement and rightly said that it would take political direction to bring in the living wage. The Business Secretary did say that the Low Pay Commission should be free of political interference, but bringing in the national minimum wage and, indeed, the living wage is a political direction, and we should all be striving for that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was one of the hon. Members who stayed in this House all night trying to get the national minimum wage legislation through. Let us not underestimate the former right hon. and hon. Members, and those who still sit in this House, who made such effort to get this legislation through, despite the vehement opposition of many on the Opposition Benches.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) has done some wonderful work in his constituency since he was elected in that wonderful by-election victory, and he gave numerous examples of where workers are paid less than the national minimum wage because of unlawful deductions. He mentioned the increasing problem of the personal accident insurance that is being taken off employees; it is costing employers pennies but they are taking pounds from employees. We have to make sure that there is enforcement on such issues.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) is a passionate advocate for the living wage and rightly gave credit to the councils that are paying it. My local council in Edinburgh is paying above the living wage and has done since 2011, and we should encourage more councils and employers to do more. When I am at this Dispatch Box I always find that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speaks last, or second last, and is curtailed in his contributions. I would like to hear an awful lot more of him speaking in this Chamber, because he deserves significant congratulations on the campaign he has run against national minimum wage exploitation; we heard some of the issues relating to the shipping industry from him.
	Last, but certainly not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) talked about why enforcement fines should go back into the enforcement industry, to make sure that we can enforce the system better and that exploitation is rooted out.
	We have had a robust debate on the national minimum wage, in which I have been struck by the Government’s restatement of their policies. Indeed, they have re-announced their policy on naming and shaming more times than they have actually used it, which is surprising. We need more action from the Government on these issues, rather than the restating of policies. When the Prime Minister, no less, announced the increase in fines back in November, I am sure that the Government had no intention of rushing them through—until the Opposition called this debate. But that is not new in this House, and this Opposition will continue to press the Government to get results.
	Labour will also bring in Make Work Pay contracts to encourage people to pay the living wage, and we have instigated a review led by Alan Buckle, the former deputy chairman of KPMG. He will look in detail at how to restore the value of the minimum wage; how to
	ensure that sectors that can afford to pay more do so; and how we can promote better the living wage. In November, the Leader of the Opposition also outlined how a future Labour Government will provide tax incentives for employers that sign up to pay the living wage—employers, employees, trade unions, the Government and the Treasury all working together to share the benefits of lifting pay for the lowest paid in this country. Those benefits can be shared for all; I think that that is the right way to go.
	Labour created the national minimum wage, despite strong opposition, and it is Labour that will strengthen it for all the low-paid people around our country, moving together towards the shared goal of making work pay for all. It is Labour that will take proper sanctions against those who do not pay it. That is only fair to those who work hard, do the right thing and deserve to be paid properly. That is what we are trying to do today, and I hope that the Government will support our motion.

Nicky Morgan: This afternoon’s debate has been a good one, and we have heard interesting contributions from all parts of the House. I counted 13 Back-Bench Members of Parliament who have been able to contribute in the couple of hours available to us. I will try, shortly, to address as many of the points raised as possible in the time allowed to me.
	The shadow Secretary of State and many Opposition Members have taken great pride in pointing out that 17 years ago some members of my party had reservations about the impact that a minimum wage might have on UK businesses. The Opposition are right to point out that some of those fears—[Interruption.] I think they might want to listen to this. They are right to point out that some of those fears have been unfounded and that the minimum wage has been important for our lower-paid workers. I hope Opposition Members will realise that acknowledging mistakes is not terribly hard. The shadow Chancellor might want to think about that when he realises who crashed our economy.
	What we have to remember is that this is all about finding the right balance. Yes, we would like to see a faster increase in the national minimum wage and everyone sharing in the recovery, but if an increase were to cost people their jobs or to slow down the recovery, then it would, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, be completely self-defeating. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has asked the Low Pay Commission, whose judgment and expertise we value greatly, to consider the conditions that we would need for a faster increase.

Chris Williamson: Does the hon. Lady deprecate those employment agencies that seek to use the Swedish derogation model to get around the implementation of the minimum wage? Is that not a gross abuse of that derogation, and does she deprecate it?

Nicky Morgan: I will come on to that point, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) mentioned it in his speech. If Members will forgive me, I will accept only a few interventions because I want to reflect on the points that have been raised this afternoon.
	As all Members are aware, the Low Pay Commission will report to us next month on the recommended wage for 2014, and the Government will respond shortly after. As we have heard this afternoon, we must ensure that the existing wage rates are properly enforced, which is why this Government’s steps to hit those firms found guilty of failing to pay the wages with penalties and publicity will be so important.
	Let me turn to the points that have been made by Members across the House this afternoon. We started with a typically thoughtful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has looked a great deal at this area. He mentioned the reintroduction of the 10p tax band, which is an interesting suggestion. [Interruption.] Yes, who did abolish the 10p tax rate? I think it was the Labour party! My hon. Friend also talked about making some changes to national insurance contributions, but the most important thing he said was that we want to leave workers with more money in their pockets, and that is what this Government are all about.
	The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) reminded us all that the Low Pay Commission is independent, which is critical. It was set up by the previous Government and we need to wait to hear what it recommends before we make any further decisions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) was absolutely right about the importance of low inflation. I am sure that he, like all Members, will welcome the recent fall in inflation and the impact that that will have on people’s wages and the amount of money that households have to spend.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who is not in his place at the moment, talked about the policy to abolish national insurance contributions for those under the age of 21, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the autumn statement. He was absolutely right to say that we must encourage businesses to take on as many young employees as they possibly can.
	Let me move on to the contributions from Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) and the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Corby (Andy Sawford), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) all talked about enforcement. I am sure that others did as well. In 2012-13, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs collected £3.9 million in arrears for workers; 26,500 workers benefited. That was a 33% increase in the number of workers benefiting and a 26% increase in the number of arrears identified. Seven hundred employers were penalised last year for failing to comply with the national minimum wage rates, and the value of fines, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, was seven times higher last year than it was in 2009-10.
	In 2009-10, 381 penalties were charged, and last year it was 696, although it had risen to more than 900 in the previous two years. Opposition Members talked about the amount of money that was given to the enforcement agencies. However, it is not necessarily about how much money is given but how effective those enforcement agencies are with the money that is given to them—a principle that Government Members take very seriously.
	I must comment on the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) about the fact that although it had taken the Labour party nearly 100 years to deliver the national minimum wage, it got there in the end. It looks like it is going to take the shadow Chancellor 100 years before the Labour party comes up with a long-term economic plan. He has plenty of time and we look forward to hearing it.
	Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, did not tackle the fact that the rise in the income tax threshold introduced by the Government has left more money in workers’ pockets. The hon. Gentleman talked about comparisons with the minimum wage and what it was when Labour was in government, but the fact is that constituents come to MPs from both sides of the House and say that they have more money in their pockets as a result of the fact that the personal allowance has gone up.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) talked about UK employees being undercut. We have asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to explain what enforcement action it is taking against employment agencies that discriminate against our nationals, for example by advertising UK jobs exclusively overseas. That is an issue we are aware of and we have asked the EHRC to address it.
	I thought that the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) was very fair in his remarks about enforcement in his constituency. There is clearly more to come and I heard what he said about the new penalty figures and the penalties that have been levied. I am sure that my colleagues in BIS will take note of what he said.
	The hon. Member for Blaydon talked about care workers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the guidance on travelling time has been updated. It is right that we should do more to get that guidance out. I have been approached about it in my constituency office as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough and we certainly need to disseminate it better.
	We had some interesting contributions from Members this afternoon and I thank all Members for their contributions. I am aware that I have not necessarily been able to respond to all the points that have been raised this afternoon. I shall certainly take away what has been said and I will read the debate to see whether we need to tackle any other issues.
	It is fair to say that almost everyone who has spoken in the Chamber today wants to achieve the same goals. We want to see those who receive the minimum wage paid fairly and we want to see those who do not pay the minimum wage treated harshly. I am sure all Members welcome today’s announcement, mentioned by Government Members, that the fines have been quadrupled from £5,000 to £20,000. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we would also like to increase those fines to £20,000 per worker, which will send a clear message to employers who think that they can flout the minimum wage regulations that that is not an option and that they need to pay a fair wage for a fair day’s work.
	We want wages to continue to rise, unemployment to continue to fall and our economy to continue to recover, and we want everyone in this country to share in that. I ask the House to wait for the Low Pay Commission’s report, to reject the motion and to support the Government amendment.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 235, Noes 299.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 297, Noes 227.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that since 2010, the Government has increased the National Minimum Wage each year, despite the worst recession in living memory, to protect the income of the low paid and increase their wages relative to average earnings, and is cutting taxes for the low paid to boost take home pay by £705 a year, taking 2.7 million out of income tax altogether; welcomes increased employment under this Government, which is at its highest ever level; notes that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has asked the Low Pay Commission for an assessment of how it might achieve a higher National Minimum Wage in the future without damaging employment; further notes that the Government has maintained a central enforcement body that covers all areas of the UK and ensures a consistent approach and high quality service; and further notes that the Government is quadrupling fines for employers in breach of paying the National Minimum Wage and has already made it easier to name and shame employers who flout the rules.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Aid and Advice

That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 25 November, be approved.—(Karen Bradley.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 22 January (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Criminal Law

That the draft Costs in Criminal Cases (Legal Costs) (Exceptions) Regulations 2013, which were laid before the House on 25 November, be approved.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.

ACUTE HOSPITAL WARDS (STAFFING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

Andrew George: I am delighted to have secured this important debate on the staffing of acute hospital wards, on which I know the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—I am pleased to see him in his place—is aware I have been campaigning on for a number of years.
	The pressures on acute hospitals have, without question, intensified over the past couple of decades. There are now a third fewer general and acute hospital beds than there were 25 years ago. The past decade alone has seen a 37% increase in emergency admissions. An increasing number of older patients are being admitted to hospital: 65% of admissions are of people over the age of the 65. These patients are more likely to present more complex and multiple comorbidities, and the increased demand on acute care and the increased complexity of patients’ needs will have a knock-on effect, including placing greater demand on hospital resources and increasing pressure on registered nurses, doctors and other health care professionals. It will also, of course, have an effect on patient care itself.
	I intend to concentrate on the staffing levels of registered nurses. Although much of the health debate has become obsessed with changing and tweaking management tools for commissioners—for example, by incentivising health systems with payment by results and more sophisticated tariffs, creating new pathways of care and, as far as the previous Government were concerned, wasting billions on fancy information technology systems—front-line nurses are often run ragged and overstretched on hospital wards.
	The background or history to this debate goes back to the case of Graham Pink, who was sacked by Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport in 1990 for speaking out about poor staffing. I raised the matter as long ago as 2001 with John Hutton, now Lord Hutton, who wrote in response to a question from me:
	“The work force commitments to recruit additional nurses, doctors and therapists in the NHS Plan take account of the need to increase the number of staff necessary to deliver diagnosis and treatment within the agreed clinical standards set out in the National Service”.—[Official Report, 17 July 2001; Vol. 372, c. 114W.]
	There was therefore recognition in 2001 about the need to increase the complement of staff within NHS hospitals.
	Since that time, there has been an acceleration of activity. To a certain extent, that activity was stimulated by the publication on 6 February 2013 of the Francis report on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which has been debated a great deal in the House and elsewhere. As a member, as the Minister once was, of the Select Committee on Health, I know that it has exercised our consideration on many occasions.
	To respond to the concerns about the arguably inadequate registered nurse staffing levels in many acute hospitals, the Safe Staffing Alliance has been formed with members from the Royal College of Nursing, the Patients Association, the Florence Nightingale Foundation and many other bodies. In an important launch on 12 May, it released a statement on the risk of excess deaths, indicating that
	the risk was significantly increased by lower registered nurse to patient ratios. I met the Minister on 14 May, after which I submitted a substantial file of evidence to back up the argument in favour of improving those ratios.
	On 16 July, Professor Bruce Keogh published his study on 14 hospitals. Certainly one of its key themes was the inadequate registered nurse to patient ratios on wards, which caused concern within those hospitals, and that has been debated on many occasions. On 16 August, Professor Don Berwick published a very significant report on patient safety, from which the same theme arose that we cannot achieve safe patient outcomes if we do not have adequate safe staffing levels.
	On 9 October, the Safe Staffing Alliance held a reception, which I was pleased to host, and I tabled early-day motion 643 on safe staffing on 29 October. The Government have since responded, with the National Quality Board—headed by the chief nursing officer, Jane Cummings—publishing a “How to” guide on using the right tools to establish safe staffing levels on hospital wards. On 19 November, the Government responded to the Francis report, as did the Health Committee on the same date, and announced further initiatives to address the issues, which I will come on to in a moment.
	The question is how bad the problem is now, when there is so much attention on it. Interestingly, a report in the Nursing Times this week stated:
	“Serious concerns over staffing levels and patient safety were raised last week at four hospitals in different parts of the country”
	as a result of Care Quality Commission reports. A number of CQC reports in recent years have highlighted inadequate staffing levels.

Phillip Lee: One of those CQC reports was on Wexham Park hospital, which serves part of my constituency. There have been reports of pretty woeful nursing standards, particularly on acute medical wards. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the challenge is that we have too many acute hospitals in the 21st century to deliver the appropriate care that we would all want our constituents to receive? A reconfiguration of hospital services, with fewer acute sites, would allow proper staffing of acute medical wards.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge on this subject. Of course, we have fewer acute hospitals than we used to have, but we still have serious staffing problems. On its own, that idea is not the answer, but it does need to be considered if we are to address the issue of patient safety.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the report on Wexham Park hospital stated that CQC inspectors found evidence of regular short staffing on “almost all wards” and a culture in which
	“staff did not always feel they could raise concerns”.
	The inspectors concluded that the trust was more focused on “responding to…targets” than on
	“ensuring that overall patient experiences were positive”.
	The article in the Nursing Times states:
	“Despite a previous CQC warning in May, almost all the wards inspected were found to be regularly short staffed. Staff did not always feel they could raise concerns, with a number expressing concerns about bullying and harassment, the CQC said.”
	The article states that there were similar problems at Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and that, last Wednesday,
	“Belfast Health and Social Care Trust declared a ‘major incident’ at its Royal Victoria Hospital due to a backlog of A & E patients. At one stage, 42 people were waiting on trolleys.”
	A hospital porter, Pat Neeson, is quoted by the BBC as saying that he was
	“fed up watching our nurses cry”
	as a result of long-standing A and E pressures. There are significant pressures in many hospitals. Although those examples have been in the press this week, we all know that the problem is not exclusive to those hospitals.
	This is also a political issue. The question is whether the reports implicate uncaring nurses or whether the problem is that there are not enough nurses on hospital wards. The Prime Minister has become involved in this issue through his presentation of the Francis report to the House last year and what he has said elsewhere. On 6 January 2012, he said:
	“If we want dignity and respect, we need to focus on nurses and the care they deliver. Somewhere in the last decade the health system has conspired to undermine one of this country’s greatest professions.”
	Last year, in the light of the Francis report, the Government proposed that all trainee nurses should have one year’s experience as a health care assistant before they become fully qualified. The Prime Minister said:
	“We have said in the light of that report that nurses should spend some time when they are training as healthcare assistants in the hospital really making sure that they are focused on the caring and the quality and some of the quite mundane tasks that are absolutely vital to get right in hospital”.
	The question is whether the problem is the attitude of nurses or nursing numbers.
	The Safe Staffing Alliance suggests that there are excess deaths as a result of there being insufficient nurses. Some people ask how many excess deaths there are. Given the statistics and methodologies that are available, academic statisticians would blanch at suggesting what the figure might be. I have been cautioned by House of Commons statisticians and the academics who back up the Safe Staffing Alliance about ever doing so. It is suggested that there were at least 20 excess deaths per annum in hospitals with unsafe average staffing. The RN4CAST survey of 32 English hospitals, including more than 400 wards, showed that 43% had registered a nurse staffing ratio of more than 1:8.
	There are about 240 acute hospitals. I have been heavily cautioned by the House of Commons Library and other statisticians not to extrapolate a figure, and I appreciate that I am doing what academic statisticians would never do, but I am going to step off the tightrope of academic equivocation and be a brazen politician and suggest only an indicative figure. While surrounded by so much caution and so many caveats—I do not have time to list them all—the number of excess deaths will be higher than zero and much lower than the approximately 248,000 patients who die each year in acute and community hospitals. Taking those statistics together, the indicative figure would be 4,000 excess deaths in acute hospitals in England. Clearly, this issue needs to be seriously addressed.
	All the review reports last year showed that nurse staffing was a critical issue to prevent poor care, and they absolutely corroborate the research findings of the link between registered nurse staffing and quality of
	patient outcomes. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has been commissioned to give guidance on acute ward nurse staffing by July and it will look at validating methodologies. I have spoken to Professor Gill Leng of NICE and it is clear that it will be conducted on a robust evidential basis.
	The Berwick report, the Nursing and Care Quality Forum and the Council of Deans have all publicly endorsed never having more than eight patients per registered nurse on acute wards, based on current known evidence. A number of trusts are now displaying nurse staffing on boards at ward level, with some trying to ensure that they take account of the “never more than eight” standard. A lot of action is being taken to address this issue.
	As well as avoiding excess deaths, the issue needs to be addressed by health care economists, too. Recent evaluations in Perth, Australia, which has mandated levels of safe staffing, show that investment has more than paid for itself in reductions in patient harm, fewer bedsores, less complications and infections, and fewer falls. California, which has the same arrangement, has shown a 25% reduction in readmissions. These are important benefits, which health economists need to look at when they address this issue.
	Jane Cummings, the chief nursing officer, has looked at the issue and I will read a key quote from her in the National Quality Board report:
	“There has been much debate as to whether there should be defined staffing ratios in the NHS. My view is that this misses the point—we want the right staff, with the right skills, in the right place at the right time. There is no single ratio or formula that can calculate the answers to such complex questions. The right answer will differ across and within organisations, and reaching it requires the use of evidence, evidence based tools, the exercise of professional judgement and a truly multi-professional approach. Above all, it requires openness and transparency, within organisations and with patients and the public.”
	My concern about this kind of management babble, and those who possess the presentational skills to get away with it, is that it throws a warm comfort blanket around the issue and creates a cloud of obfuscation. We need some of the hard lines proposed by the Safe Staffing Alliance, and we need fundamental standards below which no service should fall.
	I have given the Minister advance notice of my questions. Does he accept that there are still a significant number of hospital settings where the number of registered nurses on duty are insufficient to ensure patient safety, professional standards and morale among many in the nursing profession? Does he agree that the Safe Staffing Alliance proposal for a fundamental standard of never less than one registered nurse to eight patients would be a useful tool for inspections and act as a benchmark for management to use, alongside other safe staffing tools? Does he agree that the CQC should in future concentrate more on using safe staffing tools and clear measurements of how many registered nurses are on a ward? Does he agree that as part of future work force planning, hospital managers should not conflate or blur the distinction between registered nurses and advanced care practitioners? Finally, without pre-empting NICE’s conclusions this summer, what can Ministers do to guarantee that hospital boards follow, or at least apply, its proposed guidance? I look forward to his response.

Daniel Poulter: I pay tribute to the dedication and commitment to safe staffing and minimum staffing levels that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has shown over the last year. I have much enjoyed our many conversations about the matter, and although he understands that we have different views about the right thing to do, both he and we are coming from the right position, which is about ensuring that we properly respond to the scandals exposed as a result of the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs and ensuring we support all staff and hospitals to look after patients.

Jeremy Lefroy: Given that one of the problems at Stafford hospital in the mid-2000s was a sharp reduction in the number of nurses in order to cut costs, will my hon. Friend and the Department of Health be looking at cases where trusts substantially reduce the number of nurses at one point to see whether that constitutes a risk to safety?

Daniel Poulter: As I will come on to say, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, it is now a matter for the CQC to inspect trusts on issues such as quality of patient care and safety. I will outline those measures later in response to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives.
	It is important that we support staff as much as possible when they raise concerns, whether about minimum staffing levels or other quality-of-care issues—this was the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—and to do that we are facilitating and enhancing a duty of candour on trusts to ensure a more candid and open approach and to ensure that staff who have concerns are better supported and are better able to raise them.
	Turning specifically to the matters at hand, superficially the principle of minimum staffing ratios sounds seductive, but when it comes down to it, we will see that they do not guarantee safe staffing or care. For those reasons, the Government do not support them. The principle of good care is about having the right staff in the right place at the right time. As we will all be aware, the needs of patients can change not just daily, but hourly—a patient can rapidly deteriorate—and just having ticked a minimum-staffing box does not mean that the right care is necessarily being applied. The lesson to learn from Mid Staffs is that we followed the bureaucratic tick-box approach and that led to failings in care, and that just ticking boxes saying we have done something, however seductive or good it might sound, does not necessarily mean that patients are being treated right. That is a matter of clinical circumstances and the clinical judgment of staff.

Andrew George: I am well aware of the Minister’s line, but if we followed its logic to its conclusion, we would withdraw minimum staffing levels from paediatric wards, intensive care and, in other sectors, child care, which is a topic that has been hotly debated politically as well.

Daniel Poulter: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the CQC inspection regime inspects all parts of hospitals. Good care in a cardiac or intensive care unit is not
	necessarily about having one-on-one nursing; it is also about ensuring that all the other additional supports and other parts of the multidisciplinary team are in place to deliver high-quality care. That is at the heart of what the Government are trying to do. I believe that the CQC, looking not just at staffing levels but at wider determinants—for example, using the NHS safety thermometer, which looks at the issues my hon. Friend raised about bedsores—and putting together a whole picture of what the care at a trust is like, is well placed to make judgments. Part of the CQC’s inspection regime entails full clinical involvement, so it has become more of a peer-review process about what “good” looks like from one hospital to another—an important improvement in the quality of the inspection regime, which enables it to weigh up staffing issues.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that we are going to support the CQC and provide greater transparency throughout the health system—in regard to staffing levels, by ensuring that they are published in future. Trust boards will have a requirement specifically to look at their staffing levels and to address problems. We shall not simply wait for the CQC to react to staffing issues as part of its wider inspection regime; there will be a requirement on trust boards to look at them. On Christmas day, I visited my local trust and found that staffing levels were discussed on a daily basis, in direct response to improvements following the Francis inquiry. I believe the same thing is taking place in a number of hospital trusts throughout the country.
	Let me deal with my hon. Friend’s specific questions. He asked whether there were a significant number of hospital settings in which the number of registered nurses on duty was insufficient to ensure patient safety, professional standards and morale among many in the nursing profession. Our patients, their families and the public need to be assured that, wherever they are cared for and treated, there is a strong and positive patient safety culture, led from the top and embedded in every organisation.
	There can be cases where hospitals are under-staffed and there is an impact on the quality of care provided, but these cases need to be addressed from a whole-care perspective, in which staffing numbers form just one element of a broader safety assessment. It is right that clinicians and trust boards have the freedom to agree their own staff profiles, which should not be dictated from Whitehall or by some blanket tick-box approach saying “You have met the minimum staffing number; you are therefore delivering good care”. We know from what happened at Mid Staffs that that is not the case. We must do everything we can to support good decisions made in the best interest of patients on the ground. This approach will give trusts the flexibility to respond swiftly to changes in patient demand or to meet the urgent needs of patients who have deteriorated, ensuring that safety and quality care is available.
	We need to make sure that patient safety is a constant concern to each and every NHS trust and NHS employee, ensuring that risks to patient safety are always acted on as soon as they are identified, whether it relates to a “never event” or to the number of staff on a ward at any time of the day or night. We expect trust boards to sign off and publish information on staffing levels at least every six months to demonstrate that they are using
	evidence-based tools to calculate their staffing levels and provide assurance on the impact on quality of care and patient experience.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the Safe Staffing Alliance proposal for a fundamental standard of no less than one registered nurse to eight patients would be a useful tool for inspection, surveillance and as a benchmark for management to use alongside other safe staffing tools. I hope he will understand that no single dimension and no single tool can ensure patient safety and that setting minimum staffing levels does not necessarily ensure that patients get the best possible care. Patient safety is not just about safe staffing; it is about listening to patients, assessing their needs and staff taking action where there are concerns. The number of staff—not just nurses, but doctors, physiotherapists, health care assistants and all other important members of a multidisciplinary team—needed to look after patients in a cardiac intensive care unit will differ from the numbers and skill mix required in a rehabilitation setting or another care setting—and it will differ from day to day, ward by ward and sometimes even from hour to hour, depending on the care needs of patients.
	Ticking boxes on minimum staffing levels does not equate to good care. As the Berwick review made clear, ticking boxes in relation to minimum staffing levels does not equate to good care. Patients must be assessed individually, and the level of care required to ensure their safety must be determined by front-line staff locally, supported in their decision-making by a range of factors that determine safe care. That should include staffing levels, but they are not the only issue: the Berwick review made that clear as well.
	The Care Quality Commission also considers staffing levels in its inspections of registered providers, including acute hospitals. All providers registered with the CQC
	must ensure that at all times there are sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. In time, the guidance that we are developing on safe staffing will help providers to understand how to calculate reference staffing levels. It will also be used by the CQC when it assesses whether the right number of staff are employed to provide safe patient care.
	My hon. Friend asked whether I agreed that in future the CQC should concentrate more on using safe staffing tools and clear measurements, and on how many registered nurses were on a ward. I do not want to dictate from Whitehall—indeed, I am sure that none of us do—the details of what the CQC will look for; it is important for the CQC to take a flexible approach to its inspections, and to be prepared to pursue different avenues depending on what it finds. What we can all agree on is that the provision of enough trained and skilled staff is vital to the delivery of acceptable care, and that CQC inspections should continue to consider staffing levels.
	I must end my speech shortly, so I will write to my hon. Friend about the other points that he raised. I know that we are approaching this issue from the same position, and that all of us care about supporting staff and delivering high-quality care. However, I hope my hon. Friend will agree that safe staffing levels could have perverse consequences, that they are only a part of the picture when it comes to delivering good care, and that it is for the CQC to ensure that it takes an accurate and holistic view when carrying out its inspections to ensure that high-quality patient care is provided in the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.